The Court looked at whether the daily reading of a state-composed nondenominational prayer in school violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In this, Maryland effectively aided religions involving a belief in God at the expense of religions or beliefs that do not, a position that a state is expressly prohibited from taking. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the requirement violated the Establishment Clause by giving preference to candidates who believed in God and were willing to state their beliefs, over other candidates. The Court considered whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was violated by a Maryland requirement that a candidate for public office declare a belief in God to be eligible for the position. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the blue law did not violate the Free Exercise Clause, because it had a secular basis and did not make any religious practices unlawful. The Court looked at whether a Pennsylvania “blue law”-which allowed only certain types of stores to remain open for business on Sundays-violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by imposing an undue economic burden on members of the Orthodox Jewish community, whose faith requires them to close their businesses from nightfall Friday to nightfall Saturday. This case also applied the Establishment Clause to the actions of state governments. Also, the reimbursements were made directly to parents and not to any religious institution. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the law was constitutional, because the transportation reimbursements were provided to all students regardless of religion. The Court examined whether a New Jersey law allowing reimbursements to parents who sent their children on buses operated by the public transportation system to public and private schools, including parochial Catholic schools, was indirect aid to religion and thus a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. ( Citation: 310 US 296) BRI e-Lesson Available This was the first time the Court applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. The Court also held that the peaceful expression of beliefs is protected by the First Amendment from infringement by not only the federal government, but also by state governments. It ruled unanimously against the state, noting that although general regulations on solicitation are legitimate, in allowing local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not and to issue and deny permits accordingly, the state of Connecticut took on the role of determining religious truth-which violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court considered whether a Connecticut statute requiring a permit to solicit for religious or charitable purposes violated First Amendment Free Speech or Free Exercise rights. In 1943, the Court reversed this ruling in another case, West Virginia State Board of Education v. It decided 8-1 in favor of the school policy, ruling that the government could require respect for the flag as a key symbol of national unity and a means of preserving national security. The Court looked at whether a Pennsylvania law requiring students in school to salute the United States flag infringed on liberties protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ( Citation: 98 US 145) BRI e-Lesson Available It unanimously upheld the federal law banning polygamy, noting that the Free Exercise Clause forbids government from regulating belief, but does allow government to punish activity judged to be criminal, regardless of an activity’s basis in religious belief. The Court examined whether the federal anti-bigamy statute violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, because plural marriage is part of religious practice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |