1 / 0

Supreme Court's Role in 20th Century Religion Cases

Explore key Supreme Court cases like Murray v. Curlett, Abington Township v. Schempp, and Lemon v. Kurtzman that shaped religious practices. Discover how the Court addressed critical questions regarding religious freedom and government intervention.

alaric
Download Presentation

Supreme Court's Role in 20th Century Religion Cases

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 20th Century Religion Cases

    Review
  2. Key Questions addressed by the Supreme Court related to Religion May the court prohibit a religious practice that the majority of the people desire? Murray v. Curlett(1963) Abington Township v. Schempp Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971) Engle v. Vitale (1962) May the court exempt a religious minority from a legal requirement that other citizens must follow? Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Bob Jones University v. U.S. (1982) Employment Division v. Smith (1990) Reynolds v. United States (1879) May society prohibit religious practices of a minority group that the majority find objectionable or dangerous? LukumiBabalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)
  3. Establishment Test Lemon Test: 1. The statute must have a secular (nonreligious) legislative purpose 2. It must neither advance nor inhibit religion 3. It must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion
  4. Test for determining free exercise violations 1. Has the state or government action created a burden on the free exercise of religion? 2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of liberty? 3. Has the state used the least intrusive meanspossible to achieve the legitimate goal of the state?
  5. Relevant Principles for Free Exercise Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940): “The [freedom to believe] is absolute but,…the [freedom to act] cannot be [absolute]. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” Smith (1990) – A law that burdens religious practice need not be justified by a compelling state interest if it is neutral and of general applicability.
  6. LukumiBabalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) Standard: Religious liberty does not exempt citizens from laws directed toward societal protection that apply to all citizens. Laws burdening religious practice that are not neutrally applied to all citizens must undergo the most rigorous scrutiny test: Must advance compelling state interests of the highest order Must be least intrusive means possible to enforce public interest
More Related