1. Freedom of Religion: Supreme Court Cases

2. Example CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER v. MARTINEZ Hastings College required that in order to be a recognized student organization, clubs had to accept all members without discrimination due to beliefs, gender, race, or sexual orientation. One student organization, the Christian Legal Society (CLS), required members to subscribe to a "Statement of Beliefs" and refrain from certain proscribed behavior which included homosexuality. Hastings refused to recognize the Christian Legal Society as a student organization. The beliefs and behavior at issue were those of LGBT students; neither those students, nor those who advocated for them, were allowed to become members. The CLS sued, arguing that the university, as a public institution, could not restrict the group's rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion; the National Center for Lesbian Rights represented Hastings Outlaw, a campus gay rights group that joined acting chancellor and dean Leo P. Martinez to defend the policy. Using the Lemon Law Did Hastings club rule on non-discrimination by student clubs have a secular purpose? Did Hastings rule on clubs support or hurt a particular religion? Did the rule provide too much government involvement with religion? No

3. Court Decision CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER v. MARTINEZ The Supreme Court said that the college's all-comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition and, therefore, did not violate First Amendment limitations.. The Court further reasoned that, considering this constitutional inquiry occurs in the education context, Hasting's all- comers policy is reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Justice John Paul Stevens also disagreed with CLS noting that while the First Amendment may protect CLS' discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support such practices.

4. The Law calling for the teaching of “Creation Science” is Constitutional The Law calling for the Teaching of “Creation Science” is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

5. The Court’s Ruling Edwards v. Aguillard 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.”

6. The Ordinances violate the Free Exercise Clause The Ordinances do not violate the Free Exercise Clause

7. The Court’s Ruling -Church of Lukeumi Babalu Aye The Court held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor made to apply to everyone. The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to this church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they are unconstitutional

8. The Principal violated the Establishment Clause The Principal did not violate the Establishment Clause

9. The Court’s Ruling- Lee v. Weisman The Court held that government involvement in this case creates "a state-sponsored and state- directed religious exercise in a public school." Such conduct conflicts with settled rules about prayer for students. The school's rule creates subtle and indirect coercion (students must stand respectfully and silently), forcing students to act in ways which establish a state religion. The cornerstone principle of the Establishment Clause is that government may not compose official prayers to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government.

10. The Nativity scene violated the Establishment Clause The Nativity Scene did not violate the Establishment Clause

11. The Court’s Ruling- Lynch v. Donnelly The Court held that notwithstanding the religious significance of the nativity scene, the city had not violated the Establishment Clause. The Court found that the display, viewed in the context of the holiday season, was not a purposeful effort to advocate a particular religious message. The Court found that the display merely showed the historical origins of the holiday and had "legitimate secular purposes." The Court held that the symbols posed no danger of establishing a state church.