Case A: Religious Speech by Government

The Constitution says that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.” The Supreme Court has decided several cases that examine whether prayer in
government is an “establishment” of religion. Public schools are parts of the government, so prayer in public
schools is subject to this requirement. Moreover, courts have recognized that school children are likely to feel
pressure from leaders and peers to conform.

In two cases, the Supreme Court has said:

- A prayer delivered by a rabbi at a middle-school graduation ceremony violates the

Establishment Clause. Since the school controlled the ceremony, a government body was
involved in the religious exercise. The school’s control placed both public and peer pressure on
students to participate. (Lee v. Weisman)
- A school’s policy of student-led prayer over the loudspeaker at high-school football games
violates the Establishment Clause. While students voted on whether to have the prayer and
actually said the words, the school controlled the event, facility, and microphone. Therefore, it
was government-endorsed and could pressure student attendees to participate. (Santa Fe v. Doe)

Now imagine you are on the Court and a new case has just been accepted for review.

For years, the basketball coach at Local High School led all the players in prayer in the locker room before
every game. The coach called on God and Jesus Christ to bless the game, keep the players safe, and inspire
them to strive for excellence. The principal of the school heard about this practice and told the coach to stop
having the prayers because they might violate the Constitution. The coach stopped leading prayers, but in her
place the senior captains of the team continued to gather the players in the locker room and recite the same
prayer the coach had for years. One of the ninth graders on the team challenged this prayer, saying that it
violated the Establishment Clause.

Examine the Court’s earlier decisions and compare them to this new case.

How is each earlier decision similar to this new case? How are they different?

The cases mentioned above are similar to this new case as they all involve the government, prayer and high
schools- in the aforementioned first two, the court decided that it was against the establishemnt cause and
therefore in violation of the constitution to either A) Have a Rabbi led prayer or B) Have a loudspeaker
broadcast a prayer at a football game. This is similar in the sense that there is a prayer beng read, but separate
in that because the students are choosing to have a prayer of their own accord, and not using school
equipment to do so, it is less clear-cut.
Do you think that the earlier decisions point to a particular outcome in this case? If so, what?

I think that they do not necessarily point to any particular outcome as each case should be decided on its own
details, but the previous cases do point to that that the supreme court tends to be strict on anti-Establishment
matters and thus might rule this unconstitutional.

How would you decide this case? Why?

I would first look at if the school has any effect on the prayers happening, and whether they are involved at all
in influencing the senior captains to do so. If I found that the captains were doing it all of their own accord
and separate from government funded objects, I would probably not rule it as unconstitutional.

Case B: Government Funding for Religion

The Constitution says that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There is
widespread agreement that the government cannot fund churches’ religious services and activities. What
about government funding for nonreligious activities provided by religious organizations? The Supreme
Court has decided several cases that examine this issue.

In two cases, the Supreme Court has said:

- The government may pay for educational materials and computer software and hardware at
private, religious elementary and secondary schools, as long as it is used to implement secular,
neutral, and non-ideological programs. The aid must be equally available to nonreligious
organizations or schools as well. (Mitchell v. Helms)
- The government may provide tuition vouchers for low-income families to use to send their
children to the participating school of their choice, even if the school receiving the
government-funded voucher is religious. Since individual families are choosing where to send
their children, there is no perceived endorsement of religion by the government. (Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris)

Now imagine you are on the Court and a new case has just been accepted for review.

Homelessness is a problem in Big City. The city government decides to contract with an outside organization
to provide services to the homeless population, including providing shelter and food. The organization that
won the bid for this contract is a religious organization that is loosely affiliated with a local church. The
organization uses the public funding to operate its overnight shelter, job-counseling program, and soup
kitchen. Every evening at the shelter and the soup kitchen, the workers lead a prayer and Bible reading for all
guests. Religious literature is distributed with every meal. The city is sued over this program, with the
assertion that it violates the Establishment Clause.
Examine the Court’s earlier decisions and compare them to this new case.

How is each earlier decision similar to this new case? How are they different?

Both decisions are similar in the sense that they are concerning government funding and its involvement with
religious organizations- in all cases, the government is actively funding organizations which hold religious
affiliation, whether that be in case 1) equipment for religious schools 2) vouchers for tuition at religious
school or 3) funding for religious homeless programmes. They are different in the sense that 1) directly
provides schools with funding for secular purposes, 2) provides people with funding and choice to choose a
school, and 3)allows religious organizations to distribute religious paraphernalia.

Do you think that the earlier decisions point to a particular outcome in this case? If so, what?

Not really as neither of the earlier decisions are allowing funding to go towards distributing religious items
and praying directly.

How would you decide this case? Why?

I would rule this as unconstitutional. It seems pretty clear-cut that the organization is forcing a religious
viewpoint upon a shelter which is funded by a secular government and meant to remain secular.
 Case C: Government Regulation of Religious Practice
The Constitution says “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Generally,
that means that people may practice their religion in any way they choose. When is it Constitutional for a
regulation to interfere with a person’s exercise of his religion?

In two cases, the Supreme Court has said:

- A state government cannot force Amish families to keep their children in school past eighth
grade. The Court ruled that the families’ religious beliefs and practices outweighed the State’s
interests in making the children attend school beyond the eighth grade. The Court said that an
additional one or two years of high school (until the required age of 16) would not produce
enough educational benefits to be a “compelling government interest.” (Wisconsin v. Yoder)
- The Free Exercise clause does not excuse an individual from compliance with a valid criminal
law. The Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s drug law, which prohibited the consumption of illegal
drugs—even for sacramental religious uses—over the objection of Native Americans who
wanted to use peyote in religious ceremonies. If such a law applies equally to everyone, and was
not intended to burden religious beliefs, it does not violate the U.S. Constitution. However,
several states enacted laws to further protect religious practices. (Employment Division v. Smith)

Now imagine you are on the Court and a new case has just been accepted for review.

Kansasippi has a state law that prohibits child neglect—defined as the failure of a parent to provide needed
food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision to the degree that the child’s health or safety are
threatened with harm. Elisa’s parents belong to a religion that sincerely believes in healing only through
prayer and refuses medical treatment. Elisa contracts a serious, but non-fatal, disease. Her parents refuse
treatment or medication and instead hold prayer vigils with their church. While the disease is not fatal, it can
result in muscle degeneration, which could lead to difficulty speaking and walking. The state charges Elisa’s
parents with child neglect and removes her from their care. Elisa’s parents argue that the child neglect law
violates their religious-freedom rights.

Examine the Court’s earlier decisions and compare them to this new case.

How is each earlier decision similar to this new case? How are they different?

The earlier decisions both deal with religious freedoms in America, and how they can prevent certain aspects
of lawmaking through the free exercise portion, or religious-freedom. Case 1 deals with the Government’s
choice not to mandate education past the 8th Grade for Amish children. Case 2 deals with the consumption
of religious drugs during ceremonies, which was held as still banned under law and not “free practice’. Case 3,
on the other hand, deals with neglect of a child which could lead to death, a subject not breached besides in
edge-case scenarios of Case 2…
Do you think that the earlier decisions point to a particular outcome in this case? If so, what?

Not really, as the subjects discussed in the first two cases do not really reach the same levels as childhood
neglect, being education and drug use respectively.

How would you decide this case? Why?

I would rule that child neglect, and denying life-saving treatment does not fall under free practice and thus
could be prosecuted. Because it involves the life of a child who does not have a particular say in the matter, it
is not up to the parents.