Religion Flashcards Preview

Constitutional Law II > Religion > Flashcards

Flashcards in Religion Deck (28):
1

Everson v. Board of Education
(Facts)

A New Jersey statute authorized school districts to make rules and contracts involving the transportation of children to and from schools, including parochial schools. Based on this law, a local school board issued a resolution authorizing reimbursement to parents of children attending Roman Catholic schools for funds used to send their children to school on public buses.

2

Everson v. Board of Education
(Meaning)

This case stands for the proposition that, while no law respecting an establishment of religion will stand under the Constitution , neutral laws, which afford benefits to children will be upheld.

3

Lee v. Weisman
(Facts)

A rabbi was invited to deliver a prayer at a public school’s graduation ceremony. A student at the school challenged the practice of having prayers at public school graduations.

4

Lee v. Weisman
(Holding)

The prayer was unconstitutional because it was coercive
The state can be a participant in the free market of free speech, but that’s not how freedom of religion works, because if it enters the debate, it destroys religion.

5

Was there coercion in Lee v. Weisman

Court says yes. As a practical matter it is. Graduation, while not required, is the equivalent of a requirement.

6

Lemon Test

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong)

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong)

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Entanglement Prong)

7

Lynch v. Donnelly
(Issue)

Whether the inclusion of a crèche in a Christmas display, erected by the city, in a park owned by a nonprofit violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution?

8

Lynch v. Donnelly
(Holding)

The Court found that the display, viewed in the context of the holiday season, was not a purposeful or surreptitious effort to advocate a particular religious message. The Court found that the display merely depicted the historical origins of the Holiday and had "legitimate secular purposes."

9

Mueller v. Allen
(Issue)

Whether a Minnesota income tax deduction available for expenses incurred in sending children to public as well as non-public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

10

Mueller v. Allen
(Holding)

The Court held that the law did not have "the primary effect of advancing the sectarian aims of the non-public schools," nor did it "excessively entangle" the state in religion. Most importantly, argued Justice Rehnquist, the deductions were available to all parents; in effect, Minnesota did not "confer any imprimatur of state approval" on religious schools.

11

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
(Issue)

Does Ohio's school voucher program, that allowed parents to use the vouchers to send their children to private religious schools, violate the Establishment Clause?

12

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
(Holding)

No. The "Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious.

13

When are accommodations required?

2 Views:
1. Accommodation can frequently be required (Sherbert) Accommodations can be given to certain kinds of religions (Yoder)

2. Accommodations can be infrequent (Braunfeld) If the law is generally applicable and neutral, it is valid even if it incidentally burdens one religion (Smith)

14

Braunfeld v. Brown
(Facts)

Braunfeld owned a retail clothing store in Philadelphia. As an Orthodox Jew, he was prohibited by his faith from working on Saturday, the Sabbath.

15

Braunfeld v. Brown
(Holding))

The Court held that the law in question had only an indirect effect, and that the Court could not conclude that there was any less burdensome means of achieving the State's goals.

16

Sherbert v. Verner
(Facts)

Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was fired from her job after she refused to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. The South Carolina Employment Security Commission denied her benefits, finding unacceptable her religious justification for refusing Saturday work.

17

Sherbert v. Verner
(Holding)

The state’s asserted interest is no more than a possibility of the filing of fraudulent claims by people feigning religious objections to Saturday work. Here, no justifications underlie the determination of the state court that Appellant’s religion makes her ineligible to receive benefits.

18

Wisconsin v. Yoder
(Issue)

Did the application of the compulsory attendance law to Amish people violate respondent’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

19

Wisconsin v. Yoder
(Holding/Reasoning)

Yes. The religious goals that the Amish have are similar as the government’s goals.
The Amish were very different than other religious groups.

20

Employment Division v. Smith
(Issue)

Whether a statute, which prohibits the use of religiously inspired peyote and denies unemployment benefits to those who have been dismissed from their job because of this use of peyote violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

21

Employment Division v. Smith
(Ruling)

The right of free exercise does not relive an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law makes criminal conduct that his religion proscribes.

22

Latter Day Saints v. Amos
(Issue)

Does Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 violate the Establishment Clause by allowing religious employers to choose employees for nonreligious jobs based on their religion?

23

Latter Day Saints v. Amos
(Holding/Reasoning)

No.
Purpose: Section 702 satisfied this criterion, since it ensured that the government would not determine for religious organizations what they could count as religious activities.

Effect: The government allowed for a church to advance its religion but did not directly intervene.

Entanglement: By allowing religious organizations to employ whom they pleased, the state became less entangled in religion.

24

Texas Monthly v. Bullock
(Issue)

Does a state violate the Establishment Clause by exempting religious publications from paying taxes that all nonreligious publications must pay?

25

Texas Monthly v. Bullock
(Holding/Reasoning)

Yes. Here, the government burdened non-religious organizations because they had to pay the tax while religious organizations did not.

26

The expanded "Purpose" prong of the "Lemon Test" after Texas Monthly v. Bullock

When the government is making a permissible accommodation which benefits religious organizations exclusively, it will be unconstitutional if:
1. It markedly burdens non-religious organizations, or
2. It is not done to remove significant state-imposed burdens on the free exercise of religion.

27

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet
(Facts)

In 1989, the New York legislature passed a school districting law that intentionally drew its boundaries in accordance with the boundaries of the Village of Kiryas Joel, a religious enclave of Satmar Hasidim who practice a strict form of Judaism.

28

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet
(Holding/Reasoning)

The Court held that the statute's purpose was to exclude all but those who lived in and practiced the village enclave's extreme form of Judaism. This exclusionary intent failed to respect the Establishment Clause's requirement that states maintain a neutral position with respect to religion, because it clearly created a school zone which excluded those who were non-religious and/or did not practice Samtar Hasidism.

While the legislation did not burden non-religious organizations, it was not lifting a state-imposed burden on religion.