1. First Amendment Civil Liberties
How has the First Amendment's freedom of religion been incorporated as a right of all American citizens?

2. First Amendment: Freedom of Religion
Copy to notes
First Amendment: Freedom of Religion
Define Wall of Separation doctrine-
Establishment Clause
Summary of case
Constitutional decision
Engle v. Vitale
Abington School Dist v. Schempp
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Free Exercise Clause
Reynolds v. US
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Employment Division v. Smith

3. Objective:
Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment reflects a commitment to individual liberty. (religion)
BIG IDEA:
The interpretation and application of the First Amendments Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause reflects the ongoing debate over balancing majoritarian religious practice and free exercise.

4. Thomas Jefferson: a "wall of separation between Church and State" exists, forbidding any government support for religion.
Some argue that there is no “wall” and that the government has every ability to aid and support religious institutions, charities, and schools and to allow public religious displays and school prayer.

5. “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion…”

6. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THE CASE
WARREN COURT
CONSTITUTIONAL 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?
THE DECISION
(6-1 decision) Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion.
SOURCE
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."
All information quoted from

7. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THE CASE
WARREN COURT
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington's policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
THE DECISION
(8-1 decision) Yes. The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so."
SOURCE
THE CASE
At the beginning of the school day, students who attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After completing these readings, school authorities required all Abington Township students to recite the Lord's Prayer. Students could be excluded from these exercises by a written note from their parents to the school.
All information quoted from

8. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THE CASE
BURGER COURT
CONSTITUTIONAL 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"?
THE CASE
This case was heard concurrently with two others, Earley v. DiCenso (1971) and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971). The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to "church-related
THE DECISION
(8-0 decision) Yes. The Court found that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the "continuing state surveillance" necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would
educational institutions."
inevitably entangle the state in religious affairs.
SOURCE
All information quoted from

9. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) cont…
To determine whether a law violates the freedom of religion, the Court uses the Lemon test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman):
Does the law have a secular rather than religious purpose?
Does the law neither promote nor discourage religion?
Does the law avoid “Excessive entanglements” of the
government and religious institutions?

10. “…nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."

11. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THE CASE
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?
THE DECISION
(9-0 decision) No. 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.
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.
All information quoted from
SOURCE

12. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THE CASE
BURGER COURT
CONSTITUTIONAL 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?
THE DECISION
(7-0 decision) Yes. The 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.
SOURCE
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.
All information quoted from

13. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THE CASE
REHNQUIST COURT
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using prohibited drugs for religious purposes?
THE CASE
Alfred Smith and Galen Black worked at a private drug rehabilitation clinic. The clinic fired them because they used a hallucinogenic drug called peyote for religious purposes while worshipping at their Native American Church. The Oregon Employment Division denied them unemployment compensation because it deemed they were fired for work-related "misconduct." The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that this violated their religious free exercise rights provided by the First Amendment. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed.
THE DECISION
(5-3 decision) Yes. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion for a 5-3 court. The Court instructed the Oregon Supreme Court to determine whether peyote usage for religious purposes is prohibited under Oregon law, or only by the employer. That the Oregon law was in fact violated means that the firing was constitutional.
SOURCE
All information quoted from

14. individuals against the needs of society.
Freedom of religion is and has been a deeply
divisive issue on the Court.
The Court has tried to weigh the rights of
individuals against the needs of society.
To determine whether a law violates the freedom of religion, the Court uses the Lemon test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman):
Does the law have a secular rather than religious purpose?
Does the law neither promote nor discourage religion?
Does the law avoid “Excessive entanglements” of the
government and religious institutions?

15. EXAM PREP: Study your test preparation book, vocabulary, and our unit materials for UNIT 1: Constitutional Underpinnings and Federalism.