Court cases

Schenck v. US Argued January 8,1919 Decided March 2,2919

Schenck v. US ●Central issue of the case is the Espionage Act ●Espionage Act- prevents interference or obstruction of military action ●The case focuses on the idea that men that resist or obstruct the draft can be charged with a criminal offense. ●Precedent of the case was Frohwerk v.US and Debs v. US ●Both precedents involve obstructions of the draft in speeches and newspapers ●Schenck was a member of Philadelphia’s socialist party ●Before the case was brought to the Supreme Court Schenck was convicted and his motion for a new trial was denied ●Schenck argued that the draft violated his first amendment rights ●He was convicted for distributing leaflets to draft age men advocating for them to protect the draft.

What do you think?

The court unanimously decided to convict Schneck. Why?

The court believed that Schenck violated the Espionage Act by distributing the leaflets to draft age men. They agreed that the first amendment didn't protect him from obstructing military action

Lemon v Kurtzman (1971)

Facts and background Lemon is the prosecution Kurtzman is the defendant Catholic schools were receiving money from public funds Should religious schools receive public funding ? Rhode Island and Pennsylvania Part of three cases in total Deals with first amendment Establishment clause Lemon test 95% of religious schools are Roman Catholic Purpose,effect,entanglement June

How do you think they decided?

9-0

Why?

Reynolds Vs. US Argued: November 13-14,1878 Decided: January 5, 1879

Facts and Background March 1875, George Reynolds was convicted of bigamy in Utah. He married Amelia Jane Schofield even when he is married to Mary Ann Tuddenham Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints(LDS church) The Morrill Act does not allow anyone in a US territory to more than one when they are already marry to someone. He argue that it was his religious duty to marry more than one wife under the first amendment which allow free speech and religious. Chief Justice Morrison Waite stated that his reason was invalid

Did the court decision violated the First Amendment’s free exercise of religious belief?

Answer The court decision did not violate the first amendment’s of free exercise of religious belief, because the First Amendment did protect the religious belief, but it didn’t protect religious practice of bigamy. The court stated that if polygamy was allowed, people might eventually claim that human or animals sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Do you think he deserve to be punished for what he believe in even if it against the law?

Engel v. Vitale Argued April 3, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962

Facts and Background Case originated in New Hyde, New York Schools were allowed to hold voluntary prayer at the start of every day Stephen Engel (Follower of Judaism) and many families found this to be unconstitutional. William Vitale was the school board president who was sued by Engel. Engel believed this was in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment Precedent of the case was Zorach v. Clauson (1952) Steven Engel’s son attended high school in New York

What Do You Think?

The court ruled 6-1in Engel’s favor Why?

Why did the Court Rule This Way? The dissent was led by Justice Potter Stewart in which he claims that having a voluntary prayer does not favor any one religion. Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the court stating that voluntary prayer in school is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause as the clause states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”