Exam 2

Question 1

What are the facts of Engel V. Vitale (1962)

Answer 1

Board of Regents for State of New York authorized a short,
voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day
* Groups opposed to the school prayer included rabbinical
organizations, Ethical Culture and Judaic organizations
* 5 plaintiffs – 3 Jews and 2 self-proclaimed “spiritual” people who
did not belong to any one organized religion
* The prayer in question:
* “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and
beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country. Amen.”

Question 2

What is the question asked in Engel V. Vitale (1962)

Answer 2

Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start
of the school day violate the “establishment of religion”
clause of the First Amendment?

Question 3

What is the holding/reasoning of Engel V. Vitale (1962)

Answer 3

Yes.
Gov’t-written prayers were not to be recited in public schools and were an unc’al violation of the Establishment clause
* SO, neither the prayer’s nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality
* By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion

Question 4

What are the facts of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947)

Answer 4

A NJ law
allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children
to school on buses operated by the public transportation
system

*
Children
who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation
subsidy

*
Of the private schools that benefited from this policy, 96% were parochial
Catholic schools

*
Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect
aid to religion through the mechanism of reimbursing parents and students for
costs incurred as a result of attending religious schools violated both the NJ
state constitution and First Amend

Question 5

What is the question asked in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947)

Answer 5

Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment?

Question 6

What is the holding/reasoning of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947)

Answer 6

No, Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution
* Black – services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are “separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function” that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment

Question 7

What are the facts of Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

Answer 7

Case concerns Bible-reading in PA public schools
* Beginning of the school day, students who attended public schools in the state of PA were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible:
* PA Law: “required that “[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day”
After completing these readings, school authorities required all Abington Township students to recite the Lord’s Prayer
* Students could be excluded from these exercises by a written note from their parents to the school (Per amendment to statute)

Question 8

what are the questions asked in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

Answer 8

Did the PA law and Abington’s policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Question 9

What’s the holding/reasoning of Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

Answer 9

Bible reading exercises and mandated prayer in public schools violates the Constitution
* The required activities encroaches on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were “intended by the State to be so”
* “The Constitution says that the government shall take no part in the establishment of religion … No means no”

Question 10

What are the facts of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Answer 10

Heard concurrently with two others, Earley v. DiCenso
(1971) and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971)
* Involved controversies over laws in PA and RI
* PA, a statute provided financial support for teacher
salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular
subjects to non-public schools
* RI statute provided direct supplemental salary payments
to teachers in non-public elementary schools
* Each statute made aid available to “church-related
educational institutions”

Question 11

What are the questions asked in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Answer 11

Did the RI and PA statutes violate the First
Amendment’s Establishment Clause by making state
financial aid available to “church- related educational
Institutions”?

Question 12

Whats the holding/reasoning of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Answer 12

Yes.
* The parochial school system was “an integral part of the
religious mission of the Catholic Church,” and the Act fostered
“excessive entanglement” between government and religion,
thus violating the Establishment Clause
* Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses
of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the
entire relationship arising under the statutes involves
excessive entanglement between government and religion

Question 13

What are the facts of Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

Answer 13

Adeil Sherbert (member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church)
* Worked as a textile-mill operator
* Two yrs after her conversion to that faith, her employer switched from a five-day to a six-day workweek, including Saturdays
* She refused to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith, and was fired from her job
* She couldn’t find any other work and applied for unemployment compensation
* SC Employment Security Commission denied her benefits
* Finding unacceptable her religious justification for refusing Saturday work even though the state’s ineligibility provisions exempted anyone, whether religious or not, “for good cause”
* State trial court and SC Supreme Court affirms Employment Security Commission’s decision

Question 14

What are the questions asked in Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

Answer 14

Did the denial of unemployment compensation violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Question 15

Whats the holding/reasoning of Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

Answer 15

The gov’t’s denial of Sherbert’s claim was an unc’al burden on the free exercise of her religion. Denial of Sherbert’s unemployment claim represents a substantial burden upon her* Even if that burden takes the form of denial of a privilege to unemployment compensation, instead of violating compensation she was entitled to by right, it still effectively impeded her free exercise of her religion * “to condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant’s willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her c’al liberties” * Opinion – did not consider the Equal Protection argument since it had already ruled in Sherbert’s favor on First Amend grounds

Question 16

What are the facts of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Answer 16

Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a WI law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16
* The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs
* Under Amish church standards, higher education was deemed not only unnecessary for their simple way of life, but also endangering to their salvation
* Appealed for exemption from compulsory education under the basis of these religious convictions
* Sincerely held to the belief that the values their children would learn at home would surpass the worldly knowledge taught in school
* Convicted in the Green County Court
* Each defendant fined $5
* WI Supreme Court found in Yoder’s favor
* And WI appealed the case to SCOTUS

Question 17

What are the questions asked in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Answer 17

Did WI’s requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their
children to school for religious reasons?

Question 18

Whats the holding/reasoning of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Answer 18

Majority Opinion – individual’s interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighs the State’s interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade
* The values and programs of secondary school are “in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion,” and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law
* Burger advances his accommodationist approach in carving out an exception for the Amish from compulsory school attendance beyond the 8th grade

Question 19

What are the facts of Employment Division, Department of Human
Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 US 872 (1990)

Answer 19

Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested peyote – a powerful hallucinogen – as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church
* As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors
* At that time intentional possession of peyote was a crime under Oregon law without an affirmative defense for religious use
* Counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation
* The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related “misconduct”
* Counselors lost at the first level of appeal (appeals board)
* State appellate reversed denial of benefits
* SCOTUS vacated OR Supreme Court’s judgment against the counselors
* And returned the case to the OR courts to determine whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon’s state drug laws (1988)
* On remand, OR Supreme Court concluded that while OR drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause
* The case returned to the U.S. Supreme Court in this new frame

Question 20

What are the questions asked in Employment Division, Department of Human
Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 US 872 (1990)

Answer 20

Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?

Question 21

Whats the holding/reasoning of Employment Division, Department of Human
Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 US 872 (1990)

Answer 21

Yes.
* SCOTUS has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that gov’t is free to regulate
* Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind”
The First Amendment’s protection of the “free exercise” of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws
* “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself”

Question 22

What are the facts of Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Answer 22

Civil Rights Act of 1875 – affirms the equality of all
persons in the enjoyment of transportation
facilities, in hotels and inns, and in theaters and
places of public amusement
* Though privately owned, these businesses were
like public utilities, exercising public functions for
the benefit of the public and, thus, subject to
public regulation
* In five separate cases, a black person was denied
the same accommodations as a white person in
violation of the 1875 Act

Question 23

What are the questions asked in Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Answer 23

Does the Civil Rights Act of 1875 violate the 10th
Amendment of the Constitution which reserves all
powers not granted to the national government
to the states or to the people?

Question 24

Whats the holding/reasoning of Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Answer 24

The 14 Amendment restrains only state action
* The fifth section of the Amendment empowers Congress only
to enforce the prohibition on state action
* The amendment did not authorize national legislation on
subjects, which are within the domain of the state
* Private acts of racial discrimination were simply private
wrongs that the national government was powerless to
Correct

Question 25

What are the facts of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer 25

1890 Louisiana enacted a law (Separate Car Act) that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, including separate railway cars * Concerned, a group of prominent black, creole (person of mixed European and black descent, esp. Caribbean), and white New Orleans residents formed the Comité des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens) dedicated to repeal the law * They persuaded Homer Plessy to participate in an orchestrated test case * In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy born a free man and was an “octoroon” (someone who was seven-eighths Caucasian descent and one-eighth African descent) * Under LA law, he was classified as black and required to sit in the “colored” car * Took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train * Refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested

Question 26

What are the questions asked in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer 26

Is Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Question 27

Whats the holding/reasoning of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer 27

No – the state law is within constitutional boundaries The majority, upheld state-imposed racial segregation * Based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine , that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal SCOTUS concedes that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law

Question 28

What are the facts of Shelley v. Kramer (1948)

Answer 28

1945, a black family (Shelley) purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri * Designated a National Historic Landmark on December 14, 1990 * At the time of purchase, they were unaware that a restrictive covenant had been in place on the property since 1911 * The restrictive covenant barred "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property * This was a private agreement * The Kraemers (a white couple), who lived ten blocks away from the purchased housing, sued to restrain the Shelleys from taking possession of the property they had purchased * The Kraemers went to court to enforce the restrictive covenant against the Shelleys

Question 29

What are the questions asked in Shelley v. Kramer (1948)

Answer 29

Does the enforcement of a racially restrictive covenant violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Question 30

Whats the holding/reasoning of Shelley v. Kramer (1948)

Answer 30

State courts could not constitutionally prevent the sale of real estate property to blacks even if that property is covered by a racially restrictive covenant * Standing alone, racially restrictive covenants violate no rights * Private parties may voluntarily abide by the terms of such a restrictive covenant, but they may not seek judicial enforcement of such a covenant bc enforcement by the courts would constitute state action * Which violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment – since it would be discriminatory in nature

Question 31

What are the facts of Brown Board of Education I (1954)

Answer 31

Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races * The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries * Decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County * Plaintiffs assert – system of racial separation are inferior * Accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans * Racial segregation in education varied widely * From the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 in which it was prohibited

Question 32

What are the questions asked in Brown Board of Education I (1954)

Answer 32

Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?

Question 33

Whats the holding/reasoning of Brown Board of Education I (1954)

Answer 33

Yes * The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected * Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority * Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education * The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation

Question 34

What are the facts of Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

Answer 34

On account of their race, black children in Washington D.C. were denied admission to the same public schools which white children attended * Beginning in late 1949, a group of parents from the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, DC, (called the Consolidated Parents Group) petitioned the Board of Education of the District of Columbia to open the nearly completed John Phillip Sousa Junior High as an integrated school * The school board denied the petition and the school opened, admitting only whites * Sept 11, 1950, Gardner Bishop, Nicholas Stabile and the Consolidated Parents Group attempted to get eleven African-American students (including the case's plaintiff, Spottswood Bolling) admitted to the school, but were refused entry by the school's principal * James Nabrit, (professor of law at the historically black Howard University) filed suit on behalf of Bolling and the other students in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking assistance in the students' admission * When the court dismissed the claim the case was granted cert. by SCOTUS

Question 35

What are the questions asked in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

Answer 35

Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington D.C. violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment? * Did not address school desegregation in the context of the 14 Amend’s Equal Protection clause because that applies only to the states * Evaluated the policy under the Due Process clause of the 5 Amend * SN * Nabrit's argument in Bolling rested on the unCa’lity of segregation * Brown (decided the same day) argued that the idea of 'separate but equal' facilities sanctioned by Plessy (1896) was a fallacy as the facilities for black students were woefully inadequate * Though the schools attended by the plaintiffs of Bolling were certainly in exceedingly poor shape, that issue was not addressed

Question 36

Whats the holding/reasoning of Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

Answer 36

Yes * Court found that racial discrimination in the public schools of Washington D.C. denied blacks due process of law as protected by the Fifth Amendment * SCOTUS – notes the legal distinctiveness of the District of Columbia * Warren recognized that the Fifth Amendment (which applied to the District) did not contain an Equal Protection clause while the Fourteenth Amendment (which was used as the standard for outlawing school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education) did * So, lacking an equal protection standard to invalidate the District's segregation (again because it did not apply in the District of Columbia), Warren creatively relied on the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of "liberty" to find the segregation of the Washington D.C. schools unc’al

Question 37

What are the facts of Brown Board of Education II (1955)

Answer 37

After SCOTUS decision in Brown I which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional, the Court convened to issue the directives which would help to implement its newly announced constitutional principle * Given the embedded nature of racial discrimination in public schools and the diverse circumstances under which it had been practiced, the Court requested further argument on the issue of relief

Question 38

What are the questions asked in Brown Board of Education II (1955)

Answer 38

What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I?

Question 39

Whats the holding/reasoning of Brown Board of Education II (1955)

Answer 39

The Court held that the problems identified in Brown I required varied local solutions * CJ Warren conferred much responsibility on local school authorities and the courts which originally heard school segregation cases * They were to implement the principles which the Supreme Court embraced in its first Brown decision * Urged localities to act on the new principles promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed”

Question 40

What are the facts of Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Answer 40

Gov. and legislature of AR openly resisted SCOTUS decision in Brown * They refused to obey court orders designed to implement school desegregation * Local officials delayed plans to do away with segregated public facilities

Question 41

What are the questions asked in Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Answer 41

Were Arkansas officials bound by federal court orders mandating desegregation?

Question 42

Whats the holding/reasoning of Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

Answer 42

Signed, unanimous per curiam opinion * SCOTUS held that the AR officials were bound by federal court orders that rested on SCOTUS decision in Brown * Court noted that its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Brown was the supreme law of the land and that it had a "binding effect" on the states * Court reaffirmed its commitment to desegregation and reiterated that legislatures are not at liberty to annul judgments of the Court