Relevant Court Cases
Establishment Cases
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) – Defends Freedom of Religious Instruction
The Society of Sisters, a corporation that established private Catholic schools in Oregon, challenged an Oregon statute that required youths age 8-16 to attend public schools only. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Oregon statute violated the liberty of parents to determine the education of their children. It stated that “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
Everson v. Board of Education (1947) – Reimbursing Parents Upheld
The Board of Education of Ewing Township, pursuant to a New Jersey statute, reimbursed parents for the expense of bus transportation for their children to attend Catholic schools. The Court held that the statute did not constitute an establishment of religion. It reasoned that while “No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions,” the statute at hand is acceptable because it gave money to parents, not to schools. However, the Court did caution that the law was on the verge of breaching the wall of separation of church and state, a wall which “must be kept high and impregnable.”
Engle v. Vitale (1962) – Forbids School Directed Prayer in Public Schools
The Board of Education of a New York school district directed the District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class at the beginning of each school day: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." The Court held that the school directed prayer violated the First Amendment to the Constitution because it constituted an establishment of religion. The Court said that the first and most immediate purpose of the Establishment Clause rested on the belief that uniting government and religion tends to ruin government and to debase religion. Additionally, the Establishment Clause stood upon an awareness that state established religion and religious persecution go hand in hand.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – The “Lemon Test”
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island enacted statutes that provided funding directly to church-related schools for their secular educational expenses, including teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials. The Court held that these statutes violated the Establishment Clause because they created excessive government entanglement with religion. It established a three-pronged test to determine if a statute is valid: 1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and 3) the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Marsh v. Chambers (1983) – Legislative Prayer Upheld
The Nebraska legislature opened each session with prayer by a chaplain paid with public funds. The Court held that the practice did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it is “deeply embedded in the history and practice of this country.” The founding fathers who wrote the first amendment approved of the practice and it has been ongoing in Congress and state legislatures for hundreds of years. Opening legislative sessions with prayer is not an establishment of religion, but “is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”
Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) – Moment of Silence for Voluntary Prayer Disallowed
An Alabama statute authorized teachers to begin the school day with a 1-minute moment of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer.” The Court found that the statute violated the establishment clause because it did not have a secular purpose. It found that the statute treated prayer as a favored practice and that Alabama thereby breached the requirement of neutrality with respect to religion.
Zellman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) – Allows Tuition Aid for Religious Schools
Ohio provided tuition assistance directly to low-income parents in the Cleveland school district who wished to send their children to an adjacent public school or private school, whether religious or non-religious. The Court held that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause because it had a secular educational purpose, was neutral toward religion, and the assistance was given directly to parents who were free to make a choice whether or not to send their children to religious schools.
Van Orden v. Perry & McCreary v. ACLU (2005) – The Ten Commandments Cases
In the first case, the State of Texas placed a monument of the Ten Commandments on its Capital grounds. The Court held that the Establishment Clause allows such a display because it is a passive recognition of the role of religion in American government and all three branches of government have made similar acknowledgements throughout our nation’s history. In the second case, two Kentucky counties displayed the Ten
Commandments in their courthouses. Looking at the history of these displays and the other religious texts accompanying them, the Court determined this time that the displays were unconstitutional because they were not primarily motivated by a secular purpose.
Free Exercise Cases
Sherbert v. Verner (1963) – State Cannot Deny Benefits
The South Carolina Employment Commission denied unemployment benefits to appellant because she refused to accept employment that required her to work on Saturday. It is a violation of appellant’s religious beliefs, as a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, to work on Saturday. The Court held that this application of the unemployment statute violated appellant’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of her religion. The Court stated that “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 constitutional liberties.”
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) – Requires Exemption from School Attendance
Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law required children to attend public or private schools until the age of 16. This requirement conflicted with the religious beliefs of some of the Amish community. The Court held that the statute, as applied, violated the free exercise of religion of the Amish because it forbade them from practicing an essential tenant of their faith. The Court reasoned that the state’s interest in education is not absolute and even a statute apparently neutral on its face may, in its application, impermissibly burden the free exercise of religion and the rights of the parents to raise their children as they see fit.
Employ. Div. of Oregon v. Smith (1990) – No Protection for Religious Drug Use
The State of Oregon denied unemployment benefits to two individuals who lost their jobs because they used an illegal drug, peyote, as part of their religious worship in a Native American Church. The Court held that the criminal prohibition on the use of peyote is permissible under the free exercise clause. The Court reasoned that a general criminal prohibition, neutral with respect to religion, can have the incidental effect of burdening religious practice without violating the right to free exercise of religion. The Court distinguished this case from previous cases like Sherbert and Yoder by stating that it dealt with a general criminal prohibition, rather than a benefit scheme, and that this case did not implicate any other constitutional rights, such as parental rights concerning education. The Court reasoned that recognizing a free exercise right to violate a generally applicable criminal law would lead to anarchy.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) – Animal Sacrifice
The City of Hialeah passed ordinances forbidding the sacrificial killing of animals. The Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Santeria religion, which involved animal sacrifice. The Court held that the prohibitions violated the church’s free exercise rights because they were not neutral with respect toward religion. The Court concluded that the purpose of the prohibitions was to suppress religion, not to maintain public health or prevent cruelty to animals. The ordinances forbid sacrifices while allowing other forms of animal killing, such as hunting, food consumption, and euthanasia.
Locke v. Davey (2004) – No Scholarships for Theology Students
Washington State established a scholarship program for post-secondary educational expenses. It prohibited, however, any recipient from pursuing a degree in theology at the institution for which the student received the scholarship. The Court held that the policy did not offend the free exercise guarantee of the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the state has a substantial interest in not establishing religion and that the burden on program scholars was minor.
