Estrada v. Escritor (US cases cited)

The case of Estrada v. Escritor (A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003) is quite memorable for a first year law student for its sheer length and the wide array of cases cited to illustrate that "constitutional law on the subject of religious liberty [is] unsettled, mirroring the evolving views of a dynamic society."

Below are some of the U.S. cases cited in the Escritor Decision: 

Free Exercise Clause Cases

Reynolds v. United States

The Court convicted Reynolds for bigamy despite his defense of religious freedom as a Mormon who is allowed to practice polygamy. Accordingly, the belief-action test only allows absolute protection to belief but not to action:

“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifice were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?”

Cantwell v. Connecticut

The Court struck down a state law prohibiting door­-to-­door solicitation for any religious or charitable cause without prior approval of a state agency since it is a censorship of religion prohibited by the Free Exercise Clause. Accordingly, the Free Exercise Clause guarantees not only protection of belief but also freedom to act for the propagation of that belief. Nevertheless, the government has the power to regulate the times, places and manner of solicitation on the street and assure the peace and safety of the community.

  

Braunfeld v. Brown 

The Court deemed as constitutional the application of Sunday closing laws to Orthodox Jews whose beliefs required them to observe another day as the Sabbath and abstain from commercial activity on Saturday. The Court used a two-part balancing test: (a) the first step was for plaintiff to show that the regulation placed a real burden on his religious exercise. Next, (b) the burden would be upheld only if the state showed that it was pursuing an overriding secular goal by the means which imposed the least burden on religious practices. 

Using these tests, the Court found that the state had an overriding secular interest in setting aside a single day for rest, recreation and tranquility and there was no alternative means of pursuing this interest but to require Sunday as a uniform rest day.

Sherbert v. Verner

In this case, Sherbert, a Seventh Day Adventist, claimed unemployment compensation under the law as her employment was terminated for refusal to work on Saturdays on religious grounds. However, her claim for unemployment compensation was denied. 

The Court emphasized that the interest of the state must not be merely any colorable state interest, but must be paramount and compelling to override the free exercise claim. Here, the Court found that there was no such compelling state interest to override Sherbert's religious liberty. It added that even if the state could show that Sherbert's exemption would pose serious detrimental effects to the unemployment compensation fund and scheduling of work, it was incumbent upon the state to show that no alternative means of regulations would address such detrimental effects without infringing religious liberty. 

United v. Lee 

The Court refused to allow Amish employers from not paying social security taxes on wages despite the Amish employers' defense of religious beliefs. Accordingly, the broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system is of such a high order, religious belief in conflict with the payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting the tax.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (Heightened scrutiny test) 

The Court respected the religious practice of Old Order Amish that refuses to send their children to high school in defiance of compulsory high school attendance law. Accordingly, only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.

Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith

Native-American Church members were not given unemployment compensation since they were allegedly fired for job-related misconduct for ingesting peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, at a sacramental ceremony practiced by Native Americans for hundreds of years. The Court affirmed this ruling, and held that the Free Exercise Clause would be offended only if a particular religious practice were singled out for proscription:

The governments ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objectors spiritual development. . . .To make an individuals obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the laws coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the States interest is compelling - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, to become a law unto himself, . . . - contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.

  

Establishment Clause

Everson v. Board of Education

The Court upheld the reimbursements by a New Jersey school board given to parents for expenses incurred in transporting their children to and from Catholic schools. The Court justified the reimbursements on the child benefit theory, i.e., that the school board was merely furthering the state's legitimate interest in getting children regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools.

McCollum v. Board of Education 

The Court did not allow classes in religious instruction to public school students in grades four to nine despite the petition of interested members of the Jewish, Roman Catholic and a few Protestant faiths. Accordingly, the use of tax ­supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council in promoting religious education amounted to a prohibited use of tax­-established and tax-­supported public school system to aid religious groups spread their faith. The Court rejected the claim that the Establishment Clause only prohibited government preference of one religion over another and not an impartial governmental assistance of all religions.

Zorach v. Clauson

The Court upheld released time programs allowing students in public schools to leave campus upon parental permission to attend religious services while other students attended study hall. Justice Douglas, the writer of the opinion, stressed that (t)he First Amendment does not require that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.

  

Lemon v. Kurtzman

The Court held unconstitutional (a) the Pennsylvania statutory program providing publicly funded reimbursement for the cost of teachers’ salaries, textbooks and instructional materials in secular subjects, and (b) the Rhode Island statute providing salary supplements to teachers in parochial schools. According to the Court, the following elements must concur: (a) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; (b) its primary or principal effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (c) the statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion. Using these tests, the statutes are unconstitutional for fostering excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Engel v. Vitale

The Court held unconstitutional the New York Board of Regents policy that established the voluntary recitation of a brief generic prayer by children in the public schools at the start of each school day. Accordingly, in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government.

Abington School District v. Schempp, Murray v. Curlett 

The Court struck down the practice of Bible reading and the recitation of the Lord's prayer in the Pennsylvania and Maryland schools. The Court held that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause, a statute must have a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

McGowan v. Maryland

The Court upheld laws that prohibited certain businesses from operating on Sunday despite the obvious religious underpinnings of the restrictions. Accordingly, this practice has acquired a secular meaning and have become deeply entrenched in history.

Marsh v. Chambers

The Court refused to invalidate Nebraska’s policy of beginning legislative sessions with prayers offered by a Protestant chaplain retained at the taxpayers’ expense. In deciding this case, the Court drew heavily on history and the need for accommodation of popular religious beliefs.

Lynch v. Donnelly

The Court upheld a city-­sponsored nativity scene in Rhode Island. By a 5-­4 decision, the majority opinion hardly employed the Lemon test and again relied on history and the fact that the creche had become a neutral harbinger of the holiday season for many, rather than a symbol of Christianity.

Walz v. Tax Commission
The Court upheld the grant of property tax exemptions to churches by the New York City Tax Commission. The Court held that the exemption was not establishing religion but sparing the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions and preventing excessive entanglement between state and religion. At the same time, the Court acknowledged the long­ standing practice of religious tax exemption and the Court's traditional deference to legislative bodies with respect to the taxing power