2000
Background

Prior to 1995, a student elected as
Santa Fe High School's student council
chaplain delivered a prayer, described
as overtly Christian, over the public
address system before each home
varsity football game. One Mormon and
one Catholic family filed suit challenging
this practice and others under the
Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.
Main Question

Does the Santa Fe Independent School
District's policy permitting student-led,
student-initiated prayer at football
games violate the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment?
Majority Decision

In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul
Stevens, the Court held that the District's
policy permitting student-led prayer at football
games violates the Establishment Clause. The
Court concluded that the football game
prayers were public speech authorized by a
government policy and taking place on
government property at governmentsponsored school-related events and that the
District's policy involved both perceived and
actual government endorsement of the
delivery of prayer at important school events.
1878
Background

George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church
leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal antibigamy statuteBilly. Joe Reynolds pleaded guilty to
one count of knowingly failing to register and update
a registration, in violation of the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). On
appeal, he challenged the constitutionality of SORNA
and the legality of the Interim Rule implementing that
law. He also argued that his guilty plea should be
invalidated because he is "actually innocent" of
violating SORNA's registration requirements. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
rejected his arguments and affirmed the conviction.
Main Question

1. Does Reynolds have standing under
SORNA to raise claims concerning the
Attorney General's Interim Rule?

2. Is review by the Court necessary to
resolve a split among the circuit courts?
Majority Decision

Yes and yes. In a 7-2 decision written by
Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court held that
without an affirmative action by the
Attorney General, pre-act offenders would
not be obligated to register under SORNA.
Hence, the Interim Rule must be valid for
Reynolds to fall within SORNA’s authority.
The Court therefore reversed the Third
Circuit’s decision and remanded the case
to determine if the Attorney General's
Interim Rule is a valid specification.
1961
Background

Police officers sought a bombing suspect
and evidence of the bombing at the
petitioner, Miss Mapp’s (the “petitioner”)
house. After failing to gain entry on an
initial visit, the officers returned with what
purported to be a search warrant, forcibly
entered the residence, and conducted a
search in which obscene materials were
discovered. The petitioner was tried and
convicted for these materials.
Main Question

Were the confiscated materials
protected by the First Amendment?
(May evidence obtained through a
search in violation of the Fourth
Amendment be admitted in a state
criminal proceeding?)
Majority Decision

6 votes for Mapp, 3 vote(s) against. The Court
brushed aside the First Amendment issue and
declared that "all evidence obtained by
searches and seizures in violation of the
Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment],
inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been
convicted on the basis of illegally obtained
evidence. It placed the requirement of
excluding illegally obtained evidence from
court at all levels of the government. The
decision launched the Court on a troubled
course of determining how to apply the
exclusionary rule.
1969
Background

Social activist, including comedian Dick
Gregory, protested against school
segregation in Chicago, Illinois in 1966.
The marchers marched form city hall to the
Mayor’s residence. Then the protesters
start to protest adamantly and the police
asked the protesters to disperse. The
protesters did not disperse and were
arrested for demonstrating. The Illinois
supreme court held their conviction so they
went to the Supreme Court.
Main Question

Should the protesters conviction be
held, or did the police violate their First
Amendment?
Majority Decision

In an unanimous decision they
overturned their convictions. Petitioners
were denied due process since there
was no evidentiary support for their
conviction. The convictions were for
demonstrating not for disobeying police
orders. The trial judges charge allowed
the jury to convict for against protected
by the First Amendment.
1968
Background




- Arkansas (defendant) adopted statute in 1928
prohibiting teaching evolution in schools and
outlawed any textbooks containing information on
evolution. Forrest Rozzel (Secretary of the Arkansas
Board of Education Association) challenged law as
violation of the Establishment Clause of the US
Contitution. Recruited Susan Epperson (plaintiff) to
file declaratory judgment action to challenge
constitutionality of the stature
- Chancery Court – ruled in Epperson’s favor –
unconstitutional
- AR Supreme Court – reversed – valid exercise of
state’s power to specify curriculum in public schools
- Epperson appealed to US Supreme Court
Main Question

Does a law that forbids the teaching of
evolution violate the Establishment
Clause of the First Ammendment?
Majority Decision
Yes. A law that forbids the teaching of
evolution violates the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment. 9-0
(unanimous) decision
 Reasoning:
 AR selected information solely because it
conflicted with a particular religious
doctrine
 Right for states to choose curriculum, but
does not include the right to make it a
crime to teach scientific doctrine or theory
based on its conflict with religious beliefs

1980
Backgorund
Sydell Stone, et al., Challenged
Kentucky state law requiring the posting
of a copy of the Ten Commandments in
each public school classroom
 Filed a claim against James Graham,
superintendent of public schools in KY

Main Question

Is the KY statute violate the
Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment?
Majority Decision





Decision: 5 votes for Stone, 4 votes against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion
Court ruled KY law violated first part of the test
established in Lemon v. Kurtzman and thus
violates the Establishment Clause of the
Constitution
The requirement of posting the Ten
Commandments in classrooms “had no
secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly
religious in nature”
Commandments didn’t only include secular
matters, but worship and religion, too.
1971
Background

The case began because the state of Pennsylvania
passed a law that allowed the local government to
use money to fun educational programs that thought
religious-based lessons, activates and studies. The
case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman was filed by Alton
Lemon, a Pennsylvania instructor who claimed that
the state had violated the United States Constitution
by passing the law mentioned above. Lemon
believed that Pennsylvania violated the 1st
Amendment to the United States Constitution
because the Constitution does not allow the
establishment of any state laws or legislation that
combine the interests of religious people with the
interests of the state’s population.
Main Question

Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania
statutes violate the First Amendment's
Establishment Clause by making state
financial aid available to "church- related
educational institutions"?
Majority Decision


8 votes for Lemon, 0 vote(s) against
Yes, to be constitutional, a statute must have
"a secular legislative purpose," it must have
principal effects which neither advance nor
inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an
excessive government entanglement with
religion." The Court found that the
subsidization of parochial schools furthered a
process of religious inculcation, and that the
"continuing state surveillance" necessary to
enforce the specific provisions of the laws
would inevitably entangle the state in religious
affairs.
1942
Background

The West Virginia Board of Education adopted
a measure requiring that all public school
students salute the flag and recite the Pledge
of Allegiance. Students who did not participate
could be expelled; their parents could even
lose custody of them. A group of Jehovah's
Witnesses challenged the law on First
Amendment grounds. They argued that the
forced flag salute conflicted with their religious
beliefs against idol worship and graven
images, and therefore violated their free
exercise of religion and freedom of speech
rights under the First Amendment.
Main Question

Does a compulsory flag-salute law for
school children violate the First and
Fourteenth Amendments?
Majority Decision

By a 6-3 vote, the Court held that school
officials do violate the First Amendment
by compelling students to salute the flag
and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The
Court found that such a salute was a
form of utterance and was a means of
communicating ideas. "Compulsory
unification of opinion," the Court held,
was doomed to failure and was
antithetical to First Amendment values.
1984
Background

The city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island,
annually erected a Christmas display
located in the city's shopping district. The
display included such objects as a Santa
Claus house, a Christmas tree, a banner
reading "Seasons Greetings," and a
nativity scene. The creche had been
included in the display for over 40 years.
Daniel Donnelly objected to the display and
took action against Dennis Lynch, the
Mayor of Pawtucket.
Main Question

Did the inclusion of a nativity scene in
the city's display violate the
Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment?
Majority Decision

No. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that
notwithstanding the religious significance of
the creche, the city had not violated the
Establishment Clause. 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." The Court held that the symbols
posed no danger of establishing a state
church.
1985
Background

An Alabama law authorized teachers to
conduct regular religious prayer services
and activities in school classrooms
during the school day. Three of Jaffree's
children attended public schools in
Mobile. Hey toke it to the courts.
Main Question

Did Alabama law violate the First
Amendment's Establishment Clause?
Majority Decision

Yes. In a 6 to 3 decision the Court determined the
constitutionality of Alabama's prayer and meditation
statute by applying the secular purpose test, which
asked if the state's actual purpose was to endorse or
disapprove of religion. The Court held that Alabama's
passage of the prayer and meditation statute was not
only a deviation from the state's duty to maintain
absolute neutrality toward religion, but was an
affirmative endorsement of religion. As such, the
statute clearly lacked any secular purpose as it
sought to establish religion in public schools, thereby
violating the First Amendment's Establishment
Clause.
The End