1. Activity: Freedom of Religion Court Cases

2. Pair Share
Explain the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment

3. Objective
Students will be able to understand the establishment and free exercise clauses of the 1st amendment and summarize Supreme Court rulings on religion.

4. Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

5. Freedom of Religion Establishment Clause: The Free Exercise Clause:
The government can not make one religion for the entire nation
The Free Exercise Clause:
Citizens are free to practice their religion (pray, read the bible, worship, etc)
* Like all rights there are limits

6. Directions
We will be discussing actual Supreme Court cases involving questions related to the First Amendment: Freedom of Religion.
We will first look at the facts of each case and the question the Supreme Court had to answer.
Then with your partner you will discuss the case and answer the question as if you were Supreme Court justices.
Later, the actual Supreme Court decision will be displayed and you will write in on your worksheet.

7. Be sure you have the worksheet shown below

8. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905
Facts of the Case: 
A Massachusetts law allowed cities to require residents to be vaccinated against smallpox. Cambridge adopted such an ordinance, with some exceptions. Jacobson refused to comply with the requirement and was fined five dollars.

9. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905
Pair-Share: How do you think the Supreme Court answered the following question:
Did the mandatory vaccination law violate Jacobson's Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty?

10. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905
Court Decision: (write down the decision on your worksheet) NO
The Court held that the law was a legitimate exercise of the state's police power to protect the public health and safety of its citizens. Local boards of health determined when mandatory vaccinations were needed, thus making the requirement neither unreasonable nor arbitrarily imposed.

11. Engel 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."

12. Engel v. Vitale, 1962
Pair-Share: How do you think the Supreme Court answered the following 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?

13. Engel v. Vitale, 1962
Court Decision: (write down the decision on your worksheet)
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, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the decision is still unpopular with a majority of Americans.

14. Reynolds v. United States, 1879
Facts of the Case: 
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.

15. Reynolds v. United States, 1879
Pair-Share: How do you think the Supreme Court answered the following question:
Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

16. Reynolds v. United States, 1879
Court Decision: (write down the decision on your worksheet)
No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous 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

17. Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990
Facts of the Case: 
The school administration at Westside High School 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 requiremes that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages. On appeal from an adverse District Court ruling, the Court of Appeals found in favor of the students. The Supreme Court granted Westside certiorari.

18. Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990
Pair-Share: How do you think the Supreme Court answered the following question: 
Was Westside's prohibition against the formation of a Christian club consistent with the Establishment Clause, thereby rendering the Equal Access Act unconstitutional?

19. Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990
Court Decision: (write down the decision on your worksheet)
No. In distinguishing between "curriculum" and "noncurriculum student groups," the Court held that since Westside permitted other noncurricular 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 noncurriculum 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. The Court added that the Equal Access Act was constitutional because it served an overriding secular purpose by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of philosophical, political, or other types of speech. As such, the Act protected the Christian club's formation even if its members engaged in religious discussions.

20. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925
Facts of the Case: 
The Compulsory Education Act of 1922 required parents or guardians to send children between the ages of eight and sixteen to public school in the district where the children resided. The Society of Sisters was an Oregon corporation which facilitated care for orphans, educated youths, and established and maintained academies or schools. This case was decided together with Society of Sisters v. Hill Military Academy.

21. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925
Pair-Share: How do you think the Supreme Court answered the following question:
Did the Act violate the liberty of parents to direct the education of their children?

22. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925
Court Decision: (write down the decision on your worksheet)
Yes. The unanimous Court held that "the fundamental liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only."

23. 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.

24. Everson v. Board of Education, 1947
Pair-Share: How do you think the Supreme Court answered the following question:
Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

25. Everson v. Board of Education, 1947
Court Decision: (write down the decision on your worksheet)
No. A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. After detailing the history and importance of the Establishment Clause, Justice Black argued that services like bussing and police and fire protection for parochial schools are "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that for the state to provide them would not violate the First Amendment. 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.

26. Epperson v. Arkansas 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. 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.

27. Epperson v. Arkansas
Pair-Share: How do you think the Supreme Court answered the following 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?

28. Epperson v. Arkansas
Court Decision: (write down the decision on your worksheet)
Yes. Seven members of the Court held that the statute violated the Establishment clause. Writing for the Court, Justice Abe 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. Justice Fortas wrote, "The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment." The two other members of the Court concurred in the result, writing that it violated either the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment (because it was unconstitutionally vague) or the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.

29. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943
Facts of the Case: 
The West Virginia Board of Education required that the flag salute be part of the program of activities in all public schools. All teachers and pupils were required to honor the Flag; refusal to salute was treated as "insubordination" and was punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency.

30. Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943
Pair-Share: How do you think the Supreme Court answered the following question:
Did the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violate the First Amendment?

31. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943
Court Decision: (write down the decision on your worksheet)
YES. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that such a salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas. "Compulsory unification of opinion," the Court held, was doomed to failure and was antithetical to First Amendment values. Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson argued that "[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

32. Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 1971 Facts of Case
Alton Lemon, a taxpayer and resident of Pennsylvania, believed these state government payments of expenses for parochial schools, which had the primary mission of promoting particular religious beliefs, were unconstitutional. So Lemon brought suit against David Kurtzman, the state superintendent of schools, to stop state payments to parochial schools.The Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction Kurtzman to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic) for teachers' salaries, textbooks and instructional materials, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

33. Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 1971
Pair-Share: How do you think the Supreme Court answered the following question:
Does government payments to parochial schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

34. Lemon vs. Kurtzman, 1971
Court Decision: (write down the decision on your worksheet)
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
he government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

35. Wrap-Up The court decision that surprised me the most was__________.
The court decision that least surprised me was __________.
I disagree the most with decision in the case __________ v _________.