Activity:
Freedom of Religion Court Cases
Pair Share
Explain the establishment and
free-exercise clauses of the
1st Amendment
Objective

Students will be able to understand
the establishment and free exercise
clauses of the 1st amendment and
summarize Supreme Court rulings on
religion.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of
grievances.
Freedom of Religion

Establishment Clause:


The government can not make one religion
for the entire nation
The Free Exercise Clause:


Citizens are free to practice their religion
(pray, read the bible, worship, etc)
* Like all rights there are limits
Directions




We will be discussing actual Supreme Court
cases involving questions related to the First
Amendment: Freedom of Religion.
We will first look at the facts of each case
and the question the Supreme Court had to
answer.
Then with your partner you will discuss the
case and answer the question as if you were
Supreme Court justices.
Later, the actual Supreme Court decision will
be displayed and you will write in on your
worksheet.
Be sure you have the worksheet shown below
Activity:
Freedom of Religion
Court Cases
Supreme Court Case Facts
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905
Question for the Court
A Massachusetts law allowed cities to require residents to be vaccinated
against smallpox. Cambridge adopted such an ordinance, with some
exceptions. Jacobson refused to comply with the requirement and was fined
five dollars.
Did the mandatory vaccination
law violate Jacobson's
Fourteenth Amendment right
to liberty?
Engel v. Vitale, 1962
The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary
prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to
defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local
communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we
acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us,
our teachers, and our country."
Reynolds v. United States, 1879
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church leader Brigham Young,
challenged the federal anti-bigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah
territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed by the Utah territorial
supreme court.
Does the reading of a
nondenominational prayer at
the start of the school day
violate the "establishment of
religion" clause of the First
Amendment?
Does the federal anti-bigamy
statute violate the First
Amendment's free exercise
clause because plural
marriage is part of religious
practice?
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990
The school administration at Westside High School denied permission to a group of
students to form a Christian club with the same privileges and meeting terms as other
Westside after-school student clubs. In addition to citing the Establishment Clause,
Westside refused the club's formation because it lacked a faculty sponsor. When the
school board upheld the administration's denial, Mergens and several other students
sued. The students alleged that Westside's refusal violated the Equal Access Act,
which requiremes that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to
student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content"
messages. On appeal from an adverse District Court ruling, the Court of Appeals found
in favor of the students. The Supreme Court granted Westside certiorari.
Was Westside's prohibition
against the formation of a
Christian club consistent with
the Establishment Clause,
thereby rendering the Equal
Access Act unconstitutional?
Supreme Court Ruling
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905


Facts of the Case:
A Massachusetts law allowed cities to
require residents to be vaccinated
against smallpox. Cambridge adopted
such an ordinance, with some
exceptions. Jacobson refused to comply
with the requirement and was fined five
dollars.
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905

Pair-Share: How do you think the
Supreme Court answered the following
question:

Did the mandatory vaccination law
violate Jacobson's Fourteenth
Amendment right to liberty?
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905



Court Decision: (write down the decision on
your worksheet)
NO
The Court held that the law was a legitimate
exercise of the state's police power to
protect the public health and safety of its
citizens. Local boards of health determined
when mandatory vaccinations were needed,
thus making the requirement neither
unreasonable nor arbitrarily imposed.
Engel v. Vitale, 1962


Facts of the Case:
The Board of Regents for the State of New
York authorized a short, voluntary prayer
for recitation at the start of each school day.
This was an attempt to defuse the politically
potent issue by taking it out of the hands of
local communities. The blandest of
invocations read as follows: "Almighty God,
we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee,
and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers,
and our country."
Engel v. Vitale, 1962

Pair-Share: How do you think the
Supreme Court answered the following
question:

Does the reading of a
nondenominational prayer at the start
of the school day violate the
"establishment of religion" clause of the
First Amendment?
Engel v. Vitale, 1962


Court Decision: (write down the
decision on your worksheet)
Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational
character nor its voluntary character saves it
from unconstitutionality. By providing the
prayer, New York officially approved religion.
This was the first in a series of cases in which
the Court used the establishment clause to
eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which
had traditionally been a part of public
ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the
decision is still unpopular with a majority of
Americans.
Reynolds v. United States, 1879


Facts of the Case:
George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon
Church leader Brigham Young,
challenged the federal anti-bigamy
statute. Reynolds was convicted in a
Utah territorial district court. His
conviction was affirmed by the Utah
territorial supreme court.
Reynolds v. United States, 1879

Pair-Share: How do you think the
Supreme Court answered the following
question:

Does the federal anti-bigamy statute
violate the First Amendment's free
exercise clause because plural marriage
is part of religious practice?
Reynolds v. United States, 1879


Court Decision: (write down the decision on
your worksheet)
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a
unanimous court, held that the statute can punish
criminal activity without regard to religious belief.
The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it
did not protect religious practices that were judged to
be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice
polygamy could no more be exempt from the law
than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice
as part of their religious belief
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990


Facts of the Case:
The school administration at Westside High School denied
permission to a group of students to form a Christian
club with the same privileges and meeting terms as other
Westside after-school student clubs. In addition to citing
the Establishment Clause, Westside refused the club's
formation because it lacked a faculty sponsor. When the
school board upheld the administration's denial, Mergens
and several other students sued. The students alleged that
Westside's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which
requiremes that schools in receipt of federal funds provide
"equal access" to student groups seeking to express
"religious, political, philosophical, or other content"
messages. On appeal from an adverse District Court ruling,
the Court of Appeals found in favor of the students. The
Supreme Court granted Westside certiorari.
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990

Pair-Share: How do you think the
Supreme Court answered the following
question:

Was Westside's prohibition against the
formation of a Christian club consistent
with the Establishment Clause, thereby
rendering the Equal Access Act
unconstitutional?
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990


Court Decision: (write down the decision on your
worksheet)
No. In distinguishing between "curriculum" and "noncurriculum
student groups," the Court held that since Westside permitted
other noncurricular clubs, it was prohibited under the Equal
Access Act from denying equal access to any after-school club based
on the content of its speech. The proposed Christian club would be a
noncurriculum group since no other course required students to
become its members, its subject matter would not actually be taught
in classes, it did not concern the school's cumulative body of courses,
and its members would not receive academic credit for their
participation. The Court added that the Equal Access Act was
constitutional because it served an overriding secular purpose by
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of philosophical, political, or
other types of speech. As such, the Act protected the Christian club's
formation even if its members engaged in religious discussions.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925


Facts of the Case:
The Compulsory Education Act of 1922
required parents or guardians to send
children between the ages of eight and
sixteen to public school in the district where
the children resided. The Society of Sisters
was an Oregon corporation which facilitated
care for orphans, educated youths, and
established and maintained academies or
schools. This case was decided together with
Society of Sisters v. Hill Military Academy.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925

Pair-Share: How do you think the
Supreme Court answered the following
question:

Did the Act violate the liberty of parents
to direct the education of their children?
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925


Court Decision: (write down the
decision on your worksheet)
Yes. The unanimous Court held that
"the fundamental liberty upon which all
governments in this Union repose
excludes any general power of the
State to standardize its children by
forcing them to accept instruction from
public teachers only."
Everson v. Board of Education, 1947


Facts of the Case:
A New Jersey 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.
Everson v. Board of Education, 1947

Pair-Share: How do you think the
Supreme Court answered the following
question:

Did the New Jersey statute violate the
Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment as made applicable to the
states through the Fourteenth
Amendment?
Everson v. Board of Education, 1947


Court Decision: (write down the decision on
your worksheet)
No. A divided Court held that the law did not
violate the Constitution. After detailing the history
and importance of the Establishment Clause, Justice
Black argued that 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. The law did not pay
money to parochial schools, nor did it support them
directly in anyway. It was simply a law enacted as a
"general program" to assist parents of all
religions with getting their children to school.
Epperson v. Arkansas


Facts of the Case:
The Arkansas legislature passed a law
prohibiting teachers in public or statesupported schools from teaching, or using
textbooks that teach, human evolution.
Epperson, a public school teacher, sued,
claiming the law violated her First
Amendment right to free speech as well as
the Establishment Clause. The State Chancery
Court ruled that it violated his free speech
rights; the State Supreme Court reversed.
Epperson v. Arkansas

Pair-Share: How do you think the
Supreme Court answered the following
question:

Does a law forbidding the teaching of
evolution violate either the free speech
rights of teachers or the Establishment
clause of the First Amendment?
Epperson v. Arkansas


Court Decision: (write down the decision on your
worksheet)
Yes. Seven members of the Court held that the statute violated
the Establishment clause. Writing for the Court, Justice Abe
Fortas stated that the law had been based solely on the beliefs of
fundamentalist Christians, who felt that evolutionary theories
directly contradicted the biblical account of Creation. This use of
state power to prohibit the teaching of material objectionable to a
particular sect ammounted to an unconstitutional Establishment of
religion. Justice Fortas wrote, "The State's undoubted right to
prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it
the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a
scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon
reasons that violate the First Amendment." The two other members
of the Court concurred in the result, writing that it violated either
the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment (because it was
unconstitutionally vague) or the Free Speech clause of the First
Amendment.
West Virginia Board of Education v.
Barnette, 1943


Facts of the Case:
The West Virginia Board of Education
required that the flag salute be part of the
program of activities in all public schools. All
teachers and pupils were required to honor
the Flag; refusal to salute was treated as
"insubordination" and was punishable by
expulsion and charges of delinquency.
Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

Pair-Share: How do you think the
Supreme Court answered the following
question:

Did the compulsory flag-salute for
public schoolchildren violate the First
Amendment?
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943


Court Decision: (write down the decision on your
worksheet)
YES. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court overruled its
decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held
that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the
flag was unconstitutional. 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. Writing for the
majority, Justice Jackson argued that "[i]f there is any
fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no
official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be
orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other
matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or
act their faith therein."
Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 1971


Facts of Case
Alton Lemon, a taxpayer and resident of
Pennsylvania, believed these state government
payments of expenses for parochial schools, which had
the primary mission of promoting particular religious
beliefs, were unconstitutional. So Lemon brought suit
against David Kurtzman, the state superintendent of
schools, to stop state payments to parochial schools.The
Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed
the state Superintendent of Public Instruction
Kurtzman to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of
which were Catholic) for teachers' salaries, textbooks
and instructional materials, violated the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment.
Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 1971

Pair-Share: How do you think the
Supreme Court answered the following
question:

Does government payments to
parochial schools violate the
Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.
Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 1971


Court Decision: (write down the decision on your worksheet)
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon
test", which details the requirements for legislation
concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
1.
2.
3.
The government's action must have a secular
legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the
primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting
religion;
he government's action must not result in an
"excessive government entanglement" with
religion.
Wrap-Up



The court decision that surprised me
the most was__________.
The court decision that least surprised
me was __________.
I disagree the most with decision in the
case __________ v _________.
Religion: If freedom of ____________ was repealed
st
The 1 Amendment
from the Constitution, I believe that ______________
___________________________________________.
Speech: If freedom of ____________ was repealed
from the Constitution, I think that _______________
___________________________________________.
Press: In my opinion, if freedom of the ___________
How might life be different if
the 1st Amendment was
repealed (removed)?
was repealed from the Constitution, _______________
____________________________________________.
Assembly: It is my point of view that, if freedom of
____________ was repealed from the Constitution,
___________________________________________.
Petition: If freedom of ____________ was repealed
from the Constitution, I believe that ______________
___________________________________________.