Freedom of Religion
Reynolds v. US 1878
Facts of the Case
• George Reynolds, secretary to Mormon Church
leader Brigham Young, challenged the federal antibigamy statute. Reynolds was convicted in a Utah
territorial district court. His conviction was affirmed
by the Utah territorial supreme court.
Question
• Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the
First Amendment's free exercise clause because
plural marriage is part of religious practice?
Conclusion: 9 for US, 0 for Reynolds
• The 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.
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.
Question
• Did the New Jersey statute violate the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as
made applicable to the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion: 5 for NJ, 4 for Everson
• No. A divided Court held that the law did not violate
the Constitution. 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. This was the first Supreme
Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment as binding upon the states
through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
• Both Justice Hugo Black's majority opinion and Justice
Wiley Rutledge's dissenting opinion defined the First
Amendment religious clause in terms of a "wall of
separation between church and state".
Engle 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."
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?
Conclusion: 6 for Engel, 1 vote for Vitale
• 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.
Epperson v. Arkansas 1968
Facts of the Case
• The Arkansas legislature passed a law prohibiting
teachers in public or state- supported schools from
teaching, or using textbooks that teach, human
evolution. Susan 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.
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?
Conclusion: 9 for Epperson, 0 for Arkansas
• Yes. Seven members of the Court held that the
statute violated the Establishment Clause. Writing
for the Court, Justice 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.
Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971
Facts of the Case
• The case involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania
and Rhode Island. In PA, a statute provided financial
support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional
materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The RI
statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to
teachers in non-public schools. Each statute made aid
available to "church-related educational institutions."
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"?
Conclusion: 8 for Lemon, 0 for Kurtzman
• Yes. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger
articulated that 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."
Wisconsin v. Yoder 1972
Facts of the Case
• Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the
Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of
the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were
prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all
children to attend public schools until age 16. The three
parents refused to send their children to such schools
after the eighth grade, arguing that high school
attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs.
Question
• Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their
children to school at least until age 16 violate the First
Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents
who refused to send their children to school for
religious reasons?
Conclusion: 7 for Yoder, 0 for Wisconsin
• In a unamimous decision, the Court held that
individual's interests in the free exercise of religion
under the First Amendment outweighed the State's
interests in compelling school attendance beyond the
eighth grade. In the majority opinion the Court found
that the values and programs of secondary school were
"in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life
mandated by the Amish religion," and that an
additional one or two years of high school would not
produce the benefits of public education cited by
Wisconsin to justify the law.
Wallace v. Jaffree 1985
Facts of the Case
• 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.
Question
• Did Alabama law violate the First Amendment's
Establishment Clause?
BKGVBZD
_s-xclick
Conclusion: 6 for Jaffree, 3 for Wallace
• Yes. 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 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.
BOE Westside v. Mergens 1990
Facts of the Case
• The school administration at Westside HS 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 requires that schools in receipt of
federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking
to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content"
messages.
Question
• Was Westside's prohibition against the formation of a Christian
club consistent with the Establishment Clause, thereby rendering
the Equal Access Act unconstitutional?
Conclusion: 8 for Mergens, 1 for BOE
• No. In distinguishing between "curriculum" and "noncurriculum student groups," the Court held that since
Westside permitted other non-curricular 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 non-curriculum 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.