Religious Liberty Flashcards
(8 cards)
Sherbert v. Verner* (1963)
1)Facts
- Sherbert, a seventh day adventist, was fired from her job after refusing to work on saturdays on behalf of her religious beliefs. The South Carolina Employment Security Commission refused to grant her benefits.
2) Constitutional Questions
Did the denial of her unemployment benefits violate Sherbert’s First amendment free exercise rights?
3) Majority (Brennan)
Yes, state restrictions placed a substantial burden on Sherbert’s right to freely exercise her faith. Furthermore, there was no compelling government interest to violate Sherbert’s right.
SHERBERT TEST
a) Substantial burden? Yes
b) Compelling state interest? No, freeriders not constitute compelling interest.
c) Regulation least restrictive as possible? (narrowly tailored?) no.
4) Dissent (Harlan)
How to judge fraudulent claims? (freerider worry)
Establishment concern
State can offer exemptions, but NOT REQUIRED to do so
5) Concurrence (Stewart)
Establishment concerns
Fix establishment jurisprudence
6) Accommodationist
Best example for free exercise accommodationism
Applied by congress to federal law in Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
1) Facts
Native American Counselors fired for ingesting peyote as part of a religious ceremony. Denied unemployment benefits by the state.Oregon State supreme court, after remand, said the prohibition of illegal drug use for sacramental purposes was a violation of free exercise, went back to SCOTUS.
2) Constitutional Questions
- Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?
3) Majority (Scalia)
-Yes, Return to valid security policy test
Is law generally applicable? I.e infringement of free exercise merely an incident of law, not the purpose.
Cite concerns with free exercise exemptions
- Undermines law
- Beyond judicial role
- Defer to leg
4) Concurrence (O’Connor)
Apply sherbert test
-State meets strict scrutiny standard with compelling interest, therefore law upheld.
5) Dissent (Blackmun)
- Apply sherbert test
State fails to meet strict scrutiny standard, not a compelling interest.
6) Significance
A separationist view of free exercise (major precedent)
Can only be applied to states (that have not adopted RFRA) because of courts ruling on RFRA
Church of lukumi v Hialeah (1992)
1) Facts
The church of lukumi babalu aye practiced the afro-caribbean- bases religion of santeria.they used animal sacrifice as a way of worship in which they cut the carotid arteries of the animals and would occasionally eat the animal.
The city in florida adopted several ordinances addressing animal sacrifice shortly after the church was established. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exception for state licensed activities
2) Constitutional question
Did the city of Hialeah’s ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifice, violate the first amendment’s free exercise clause?
3) Outcome
The court unanimously ruled that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1973)
1) Facts
Both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statutes that allowed for state funding of aspects of non-secular, non-public education (textbooks, bonuses for teacher salaries, etc) for teaching secular subjects.
Lemon argued he should not have to pay taxes allocated to non-secular institutions.
2) Constitutional Questions
Do statutes that provide for state funding of non-public, non-secular schools violate the establishment clause of the constitution?
3) Majority (Burger)
Yes, fails LEMON TEST
Three prong test
-Secular Purpose? Yes, advance secular education.
- Primary Effect is not the advancement or hindering of education? Court did not reach a decision of the second prong.
- “Excessive Entanglement” between church and state?
Yes, the amount of oversight needed to enforce the purely non-religious nature of the secular subjects being taught would constitute excessive entanglement in both the cases in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
- Must consider
– Character and purpose of the organization
– Nature of aid received
– Subsequent govt relationship with the organization
4) Standing precedent for establishment jurisprudence
5) Concurrence in part, dissent in part (White)
majority goes too far. No evidence religion would invade government.
6) Significance
Current standing precedent for establishment clause jurisprudence
Vague, attacked by Scalia
Separationist v accommodationist? both?
McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)
1) facts
The ACLU sued three Kentucky counties for displaying framed copies of the ten commandments in courthouses and public schools. The ACLU argued the displays violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits the government from passing laws “respecting an established religion.” the sixth circuit court ruled the displays violated the establishment clause.
2) Constitutional Question
Does displaying the ten commandments in courthouses and schools violate the establishment clause? Was a determination that the displays’ purpose had been to advance religion sufficient for the displays’ invalidation
3) Conclusion
5-4
The majority held that the displays violated the establishment clause because their purpose had been to advance religion. Lemon
Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)
1) Facts
- Town of greece held official business at monthly public meetings. The meetings began with a prayer given by an invited member of the clergy. Galloway and Stevens (the two suing the town) argued that the towns practices violated the establishment clause. 1. The town initially excluded non christian prayer and 2. the town impermissibly permitted sectarian prayer
2) Constitutional Q
Does the invocation of the prayer at a legislative session violate the establishment clause of the first amendment in the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers and context
3) Majority (Kennedy)
1) coercion test. No coercion + valid secular purpose = ok
- history and tradition
4) Siginificance - Kennedy’s coercion test
- if no coercion, of broad social nature, valid secular purpose
Endorsement Test
1) O’ Connor
2) whether reasonable observer could say that govt is either endorsing or disproving of a religion
3) Lynch v. Donnoly
Non-preference Test
1) rhenquist
2) can prefer religion to non religion
3) do not prefer one religion to another
