Landmark Religious Freedom Cases: Establishment & Free Exercise

Landmark Religious Freedom Cases

School Prayer Cases and the Lemon Test

• Engel v. Vitale (1962)

  • Mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion is not coercive.
  • School prayer is a religious activity by its very nature.

• Abington School District v. Schempp / Murray v. Curlett

  • Declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional.
  • Must be neutral (basis for prong 2 of Lemon Test).

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

• The court struck down the city ordinance.
• The ordinance made it a crime to kill, torture, or mutilate an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption.
• “The laws in question were enacted by officials who did not understand, failed to perceive, or chose to ignore the fact that their official actions violated the Nation’s essential commitment to religious freedom.”
• The law was not neutral and was intended to limit a specific religious practice.

The Peyote Case and Sherbert

• The Peyote case is controversial because it broke away from Sherbert.
• Reverted to Reynolds v. United States (Mormon Polygamy Case).
• Two members of the Native American Church, who worked as drug rehabilitation counselors for a private social service agency in Oregon, ingested peyote at a ceremony practiced by Native Americans and were subsequently fired (Smith and Black).
• The state’s interest in prohibiting the use of illicit drugs outweighed religious practices.
• An individual's religious beliefs do not excuse them from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the government is free to regulate.
• The law was generally aimed and not specifically at Native Americans.

Free Exercise Claims After Sherbert

• The Peyote Case has remained a leading case regarding Free Exercise.
• 1) The court suggests First Amendment Free Exercise rights were stronger prior to Smith. During that time, judges enforced Free Exercise much more consistently.
• 2) Prior to 1990, the Court's controlling precedents required close scrutiny of governmental burdens, but in Smith, a majority of the Justices unambiguously jettisoned those longstanding rules in favor of a flat 'no exemptions' approach.
• 3) Free exercise litigants since Smith have consistently lost on the First Amendment merits in the lower federal and state courts.
• 4) Lower federal and state court judges necessarily have adhered to the Supreme Court's command that courts essentially vacate the field.

Establishment Clause vs. Free Exercise Clause

• The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.
• The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest.