Ap u.s. government & politics Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Warm-Up/HW Check: Practice MCQ The three-prong test that courts use to determine whether a law providing support for a religious institution violates the establishment clause is known as the: a. substantive due process analysis b. separate but equal doctrine c. Lemon test d. clear and present danger test e. Engle test

Decisions in the paul press?

Freedom of Religion

Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment 2 Clauses: Establishment Clause “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…” Free Exercise Clause “Nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Original Understanding of the Establishment Clause 1) No establishment of a national religion by Congress 2) No Congressional interference with states’ establishment of religion Wait, what?? Almost no one would have thought that pro-religion laws by states were a problem (But: Jefferson and Madison were considerably more separationist than most of the other founders) Jefferson: “Wall of Separation”

Birth of the Modern Establishment Clause Everson v. Board of Education (1947) Issue: Can a state fund busing of students to religious schools? Holding: Yes; because of the state’s strong interest in protecting the safety of children BUT: 5-4 Decision Court’s opinion employs rhetoric about the “Wall of Separation” (public funding for busing does not violate this) Establishment Clause is incorporated against the states

More Stringent Application of the “Wall” McCullom v. Board of Education (1948) Time-release program for (on-campus) religious instruction is struck down But: Zorach v. Clausun (1952)—Off-campus time-release is OK Engle v. Vitale (1962) Issue: Is school prayer OK, as long as it is Voluntary? Holding: No; any prayer in school violates the Wall of Separation Abingdon School District v. Schemp (1963) Voluntary Bible reading is struck down Stone v. Graham (1980) School’s display of the 10 Commandments is struck down Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) Moment of silence is struck down

The Lemon Test Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes provided public support for teacher salaries and materials at religious schools The statutes are struck down, and the Court outlines a TEST for Establishment Clause cases (the “Lemon Test”): 1) Law must have a Secular Purpose 2) It must have the effect of Neither Inhibiting nor Advancing a Religion 3) It must not create Excessive Government Entanglement with religion (Which part did the PA and RI statutes violate?)

Modern Applications of the Lemon Test Lee v. Weisman (1992) Issue: May a school invite a religious figure (in this case a rabbi), to speak at its graduation ceremony? Holding: No (excessive entanglement) 5-4 Decision Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2003) Issue: May a student deliver a prayer over the public address system before football games? Holding: No (advancement/endorsement of a religion)

The Free Exercise Clause Gobitis and Barnette What did the Court decide in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) On what grounds? Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) Same fact pattern as Barnette (Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing to participate in mandatory flag salute) Defendants argued that the mandatory salute violated their Free Exercise right The Court disagreed, citing the government’s interest in promoting “national cohesion” Three years later, the Court overruled itself in Barnette Why? But the Court decided Barnette on Free Speech—not Free Exercise—grounds

Free Exercise: Objectionable Practices Basic principle is that the government is free to outlaw religious practices if those practices violate social duties or negatively affect public health/well-being The government’s interest must be compelling, and the law must be narrowly-tailored Reynolds v. U.S. (1879) Laws banning polygamy are upheld Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) Law requiring vaccination of children is upheld Bunn v. North Carolina (1949) Law forbidding the use of poisonous snakes is upheld Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) Local ordinance forbidding the practice of animal sacrifices is struck down

Student SCOTUS: Healthcare Coverage for Contraception The Affordable Care Act included a requirement that employer-provided health care include coverage for contraception Hobby Lobby is a family-owned business that sells specialty arts and crafts supplies. The business is large enough, however (21,000 employees), to be included in the ACA’s coverage requirements. Hobby Lobby’s owners, the Green family, are devout evangelical Christians. They object to the requirement that the health insurance they provide to their employees include coverage for contraception, arguing that their Christian beliefs forbid them from paying for their employees’ birth control. According to the Greens, the contraception mandate violates their right to the free exercise of their religion. How will your Supreme Court rule in this case? Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014)

Also: Remember this case? David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012, with Craig's mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado state courts determined that Cakeshop’s refusal to sell a wedding cake to Mullins and Craig constituted unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. Cakeshop’s owners appeal the case, arguing that a court order that they provide the cake violates their free exercise of their religious beliefs. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Homework Textbook, p. 123-130

Current events discussion 7 Minutes