Law test 1 , free excersie courts

Law test 1 , free excersie courts

Cantwell vs Conneticut
IS the permit process of conneticcut a violation of the free exercise clause of the first amemnedment ? Yes becasue state officals cannot make a choice on permits off of religion

state still does have polic powers to protect citizens but they cannnot discrimibate with respect to religion
Dissent : Can’t just say becasue of religoin you can do what every you want

From this case we receive the secular purpose test, which means there has to be a non religous resean to use regulation or stop them or deny permit and has too be neutral

Sherbert Vs Verner
Verner/state try to use the case braunfeld vs brown to show a prior example does not work though .

ee exercise of religion, because her religion makes her not able to have the unemployment benefit which is wrong

Maj : Brennan: People who aren’t christian aren’t second class citizens and shouldn’t be treated like one.
Concuring STEWART: Free Exercise religon vialadet because she can’t get benefits

Disssent: Region should not be a reason why they get need based aid , would be too hard for state to single out people

Wisconsin Vs Yoder
did making the amish going past 8th grade violate there first amendment rights within the free exercise clause and the 14th amendment? Yes- sherbet test used

State attempts to use Prince Vs Massacuttes – but in this case does not work because it fails to recognize the importance of not going to school in the amish faith

Opinion: Yes the state of Wisconsin did violate their right because there is no harm to the hello of the kids, the safety , peace and order or welfare of the children by taking them out of school because it is not needed to be in school for that long according to their religion , parents can make this decision.

Conccuring: Does not see how two more years than 8th grade to being 16 would actually help more so there no need to keep them in

Dissent: Children need a voice

HR of Oregon Vs Smith
Does the state violate 1st and 14th amendment via the free exercise clause ? NO

Opinion: This is because the law was for everyone not against a certain religion or topic like sherbet and because it does not signal handle singe lsomeon one out but everyone has to obey by it than the state is constitution has a compelling reason and is consistent with allowing free exercise , we look reynolds verse the USA for this ( because they were both crimes)

Conccuring : hard to decide with the sherbet test , need a new test, and only use sherbet for hi-hybrid claims is wrong , criminal laws are different

Dissent : there is no evidence of OREGON trying to stop this before why are they truing to now out of no where

city of boerne vs flores
doe part of the RFRA unconstitutional? Yes

Opinion : Kennedy : can’t force the sherbert test on state and local governments and that is what the RFRA is doing we need to use the decision by the past cases of the court

Concurring: by congress who created the law trying to force law is violating the establishment clause because this law is based on off religion aka estbalshment clause , and it is up to states on what test they want to use congress can’t make them pick , smith is a bad test

Dissenting : we need an actual test , we do not have one some any opinion makes no sense

everson vs ewing township
Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment? NO because the state of NJ never makes the catholic religion its state

Use of Cochran vs board when books were given to private and to public

opionion : even though the state is funding the buses they are not establish a religion and they use the same money for public trans and it safe for the kids , and parents are allowed to send there kids anywhere

Dissent: Still we are support a religion ,, and its there parents choice to send them there so the states should not pay, and regardless if its a small problem it is an issue
No tax dollars to religion – everson vs board of education

Lemon vs Kurtzman
Does giving more of tax money to private teacher violate the establishment clause ? YES, even though they we’re giving more money to teachers who taught none religious classes

Lemon test: Opinon: a secular legislative purpose, primary effect to not harm or help religion, exexessove emtaganglement,

Opion ther is a violation because you are not separating church and state, secular is okay not paying for religion, but primary effect is oaky not helping or harming , excessive entanglement though is that you must monitor to make sure no religoiin is happing where state paid teachers are, and it would be too hard to monitor. impossible

COnccuring : Programs are unconsitution yes, but we don’t need a test because no tac dollars should go towards religion

agostini vs Felton
Is the Establishment Clause violated when public school teachers instruct in parochial schools? NO

LEmon test and zoebert Vs catalinia foothills show why Aguillar should be overturned

In ZO, it shows that we can have public school employee can help a private school if the pravate school does not want to asl

opinion: over rule Augillar not violating lemon test , too expensive , no change in the lemon test , we will still use it but excessive entanglement and primary effect no longer issues, no evidence of being a symbolic problem, people no the difference between religious people and non in schools

Dissent: last case Augillar was not long ago why are we changing , what we are doing is using public tax dollars to put someone to work in a regligous school is still wrong

Zelman vs Simmins-harris
Does Ohio’s school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause? NO , passes limit test because both are being used , and we see no way the test being distorted

opinion:”Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice

Concurring : lemon test passed parent choice is true private choice

Dissent : no tac money for privet schools

edwards vs Aguillard
Did the Louisiana law, which mandated the teaching of “creation science” along with the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Using the three- pronged test that the Court had developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to evaluate potential violations of the Establishment Clause, Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana’s law failed on all three prongs of the test. First, it was not enacted to further a clear secular purpose. Second, the primary effect of the law was to advance the viewpoint that a “supernatural being created humankind,” a doctrine central to the dogmas of certain religious denominations. Third, the law significantly entangled the interests of church and state by seeking “the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.”

abington vs schempp – forcing reading of bible in school
does forcing reading of bible in school violate the first free exercise clause amendment and the 14th amendment

Opionion: Majority we already went through this with everyone you can’t establish religion and unlike they did Abington did smh ,

COncuring : they are breaking the free excise by making student who have to be at school read the bible , and thy are making christianity an establish religion at a public school

Dissent : we have freedom ,and none of the student were against it , we might need to have a time in all public schools for region.

lee Vs Weisman
Does the inclusion of clergy who offer prayers at official public school ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? YES , you can not have public school entangle with religion,

use lemon test, abington vs schempp

Opinion: YEs this is a violation , kids do not have a choice but to go to graduation so free excise is violates, second we can see that there is entanglement her and a secular purpose and can al three

concurruing: the school making them partake in this event where religion is present basically is establishing religion

Dissent: Why can they not do this at graduation when the USA president ask Americans to do this all the time during events , what is the difference and it seems we used the lemon test which I believe has issue, American have always been able to say thank god regarless of the god they believe in

van orden vs perry
Does a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitol building violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which barred the government from passing laws “respecting an establishment of religion?” NO.

Opinion: we have monitor reeling closes such as in Abington and Schempp we’re relgion was being forced on students and was being established, however in this case similar every other court house in the USA texas is using the ten commandments to symbolize the past and give respect to our heritage as a country, we have stopped case such as the now in ken tuck where they attempted to put the ten commandments in every court house (stone Vs Grahman)

COnccuring : Agree it is showing our nations past but there we might need to create a law that allows this for establishment for history

Dissent : took an average person to walk by and see this is regions, it is not secular and it sits on the state capital where every citizens has right and it looks as though the state is picking one religion

Hosanna-tabor church/school vs EEOC
The Supreme Court granted review and unanimously reversed, holding that “[b]oth Religion Clauses bar the government from interfering with the decision of a religious group to fire one of its ministers.” Imposing an unwanted minister on a church violates the Free Exercise Clause, which “protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.” It also violates the Establishment Clause, which “prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.”