A couple refuses A couple refuses life-saving life-saving medical treatmentmedical treatment for their son for their son who suffers from who suffers from LeukemiaLeukemia. They . They claim it goes against their claim it goes against their religious beliefsreligious beliefs to expose their to expose their son to ‘son to ‘western medicinewestern medicine’. In ’. In their minds, God is testing them their minds, God is testing them & if their son is to survive it will & if their son is to survive it will be through be through prayerprayer & not medical & not medical treatment. The son treatment. The son diesdies. Should . Should the parents be arrested for ‘the parents be arrested for ‘child-child-endangermentendangerment’ or should they be ’ or should they be protected under the protected under the 11stst Amendment’s Freedom of Amendment’s Freedom of ReligionReligion? Be ready 2 explain in ? Be ready 2 explain in classclass

Unit 3Unit 3 – Supreme – Supreme Court CasesCourt Cases

SEC. ONESEC. ONE:: FREEDOM OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION (1RELIGION (1stst Amendment)Amendment)

1. 1. INDIVIDUAL WORTHINDIVIDUAL WORTH

THE IDEA THAT THE IDEA THAT WE KNOW WE KNOW WHAT’S BEST WHAT’S BEST FOR OURSELVESFOR OURSELVES

Short AnswerShort Answer

2. 2. CIVIL LIBERTIESCIVIL LIBERTIES

THE LAWS THAT THE LAWS THAT PROTECT OUR PROTECT OUR INDIVIDUAL WORTH INDIVIDUAL WORTH

THE 1THE 1STST AMENDMENT AMENDMENTFill InFill In

3. 3. 4 BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES IN 4 BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES IN 11STST AMENDMENT AMENDMENT (multiple (multiple choice)choice)

FREEDOM OF FREEDOM OF RELIGIONRELIGIONFREEDOM OF FREEDOM OF SPEECHSPEECHFREEDOM OF FREEDOM OF PRESSPRESSFREEDOM OF FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLYASSEMBLY

4. Analogy between swinging your arm 4. Analogy between swinging your arm and practicing your 1and practicing your 1stst Amendment Amendment freedomsfreedoms

You can do both so You can do both so long as you do not long as you do not harm anyone or harm anyone or society as a wholesociety as a whole

Extra CreditExtra Credit

2 FREEDOM OF RELIGION 2 FREEDOM OF RELIGION CLAUSESCLAUSES (extra credit) (extra credit) 5. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE5. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE::

GOV’T. WILL NOT PROMOTE GOV’T. WILL NOT PROMOTE ONE ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHERRELIGION OVER ANOTHER OR OR RELIGION OVER NON-RELIGIONRELIGION OVER NON-RELIGION

6. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE6. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE::

YOU CAN WORSHIP WHO, HOW, AND YOU CAN WORSHIP WHO, HOW, AND WHERE YOU WANT SO LONG AS YOU WHERE YOU WANT SO LONG AS YOU DON’T HARM ANYONE OR SOCIETY DON’T HARM ANYONE OR SOCIETY AS A WHOLEAS A WHOLE

Questions’ #Questions’ #77 & # & #88 will will eacheach be a be a matching sectionmatching section where the where the casescases will will be in a be in a word bankword bank & & you have to you have to matchmatch them to their correct them to their correct rulingruling

7. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSEW/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE(GOV’T. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS)(GOV’T. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS) EVERSON V. BD. OF ED.EVERSON V. BD. OF ED. (1947) – (1947) –

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: N.J. PROVIDED N.J. PROVIDED TRANSPORTATION ON PUBLIC BUSES FOR TRANSPORTATION ON PUBLIC BUSES FOR PAROCHIAL STUDENTS. TAXPAYERS SUEDPAROCHIAL STUDENTS. TAXPAYERS SUED

DECISION:DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF N.J. CUZ RULED IN FAVOR OF N.J. CUZ THE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO ENSURE THE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO ENSURE CHILD SAFETYCHILD SAFETY (CHILD BENEFIT THEORY) (CHILD BENEFIT THEORY)

7. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSEW/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (GOV’T. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS)(GOV’T. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS) LEMON V. KURTZMANLEMON V. KURTZMAN (1971) – (1971) –

DECISION: DECISION: S.C. SET UP GUIDELINES FOR S.C. SET UP GUIDELINES FOR GOV’T. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS:GOV’T. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS:* NEITHER PROMOTE NOR HARM RELIGION* NEITHER PROMOTE NOR HARM RELIGION* AVOID EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT* AVOID EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT* CAN PROVIDE FREE LUNCHES, HEALTH * CAN PROVIDE FREE LUNCHES, HEALTH SERVICES, AND TEXTBOOKSSERVICES, AND TEXTBOOKS* * CAN’T PROVIDE MAPS, PROJECTORS, OR CAN’T PROVIDE MAPS, PROJECTORS, OR TEACHER SALARIES (ANYTHING THAT CAN TEACHER SALARIES (ANYTHING THAT CAN BE USED TO TEACH RELIGION)BE USED TO TEACH RELIGION)

7. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSECLAUSE

(RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS)(RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS) McCOLLUM V. BD. OF ED.McCOLLUM V. BD. OF ED. (1948) (1948) – –

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: CHAMPAGNE, IL PUBLIC CHAMPAGNE, IL PUBLIC SCHOOLS ALLOWED KIDS (W/PARENTAL SCHOOLS ALLOWED KIDS (W/PARENTAL CONSENT) TO TAKE RELIGIOUS CLASSES CONSENT) TO TAKE RELIGIOUS CLASSES ONCE A WEEK ON SCHOOL GROUNDS ONCE A WEEK ON SCHOOL GROUNDS DURING THE SCHOOL DAYDURING THE SCHOOL DAY

DECISION:DECISION: VIOLATION OF VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSEESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

7. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSEW/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

(RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS)(RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS) ZORACH V. CLAUSON (1952)ZORACH V. CLAUSON (1952) – –

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: N.Y. ALLOWED KIDS TO N.Y. ALLOWED KIDS TO LEAVE SCHOOL GROUNDS FOR LEAVE SCHOOL GROUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS CLASSES DURING SCHOOL RELIGIOUS CLASSES DURING SCHOOL HOURSHOURS (RELEASED TIME) (RELEASED TIME)

SOME PARENTS SUEDSOME PARENTS SUED

DECISION:DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF N.Y.RULED IN FAVOR OF N.Y.

7. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSEW/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

(PRAYER IN SCHOOLS)(PRAYER IN SCHOOLS) ENGEL V. VITALE (1962)ENGEL V. VITALE (1962) – –

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: N.Y. STATE BOARD OF N.Y. STATE BOARD OF REGENTS CALLED FOR REGENTS CALLED FOR PRAYER IN PUBLIC PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSSCHOOLS. 10 KIDS OBJECTED AND . 10 KIDS OBJECTED AND PARENTS SUED THE STATEPARENTS SUED THE STATE

DECISION:DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF PARENTSRULED IN FAVOR OF PARENTS

PRAYER IN SCHOOL VIOLATES THE PRAYER IN SCHOOL VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSEESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

7. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSEW/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

(PRAYER IN SCHOOLS)(PRAYER IN SCHOOLS) LEE V. WEISMAN (1992) LEE V. WEISMAN (1992) ––

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: THE CLASS THE CLASS VALEDICTORIAN GAVE A PRAYER AT VALEDICTORIAN GAVE A PRAYER AT COMMENCEMENT. SOME PARENTS SUED COMMENCEMENT. SOME PARENTS SUED THE SCHOOL DISTRICTTHE SCHOOL DISTRICT

DECISION:DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF THE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE PARENTS. PARENTS. GRADUATION PRAYERS ARE GRADUATION PRAYERS ARE ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSEESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

8. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSEEXERCISE CLAUSE

(CASES UPHOLDING FREE EXERCISE)(CASES UPHOLDING FREE EXERCISE) WISCONSIN V. YODER (1972) –WISCONSIN V. YODER (1972) –

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: WISCONSIN LAW WISCONSIN LAW MADE ALL KIDS GO TO H.S. AMISH MADE ALL KIDS GO TO H.S. AMISH OBJECTED (KIDS NEEDED ON THE OBJECTED (KIDS NEEDED ON THE FARM)FARM)DECISION:DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF THE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE AMISH. WISCONSIN CAN NOT FORCE AMISH. WISCONSIN CAN NOT FORCE KIDS TO GO TO SCHOOL KIDS TO GO TO SCHOOL (VIOLATION (VIOLATION OF THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSEOF THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

8. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSEW/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

(CASES UPHOLDING FREE EXERCISE)(CASES UPHOLDING FREE EXERCISE) SHERBERT V. VERNER (1963) – SHERBERT V. VERNER (1963) –

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: EMPLOYEE FIRED FOR NOT EMPLOYEE FIRED FOR NOT WORKING ON HER SABBATH DAY. WORKING ON HER SABBATH DAY. EMPLOYER WOULD NOT PAY EMPLOYER WOULD NOT PAY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITSUNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

DECISION:DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF EMPLOYEE. RULED IN FAVOR OF EMPLOYEE. AN EMPLOYER CAN’T DENY AN EMPLOYER CAN’T DENY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR AN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR AN EMPLOYEE FIRED FOR NOT WORKING ON EMPLOYEE FIRED FOR NOT WORKING ON THEIR SABBATHTHEIR SABBATH

8. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSEW/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

(CASES LIMITING FREE EXERCISE)(CASES LIMITING FREE EXERCISE) REYNOLDS V. U.S. (1879) – REYNOLDS V. U.S. (1879) –

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: REYNOLDS REYNOLDS (MORMAN) CONVICTED OF (MORMAN) CONVICTED OF POLYGOMYPOLYGOMY

DECISION:DECISION: SUPREME COURT UPHELD SUPREME COURT UPHELD CONVICTION. POLYGOMY ‘HARMS’ CONVICTION. POLYGOMY ‘HARMS’ SOCIETY AS A WHOLESOCIETY AS A WHOLE

8. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSEEXERCISE CLAUSE

(CASES LIMITING FREE EXERCISE)(CASES LIMITING FREE EXERCISE) Conscientious Objectors – Conscientious Objectors –

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: DURING THE VIETNAM DURING THE VIETNAM WAR, SOME AMERICANS EVADED THE WAR, SOME AMERICANS EVADED THE DRAFT BECAUSE THEY FELT IT VIOLATED DRAFT BECAUSE THEY FELT IT VIOLATED THEIR 1THEIR 1STST AMENDMENT (FREEDOM OF AMENDMENT (FREEDOM OF RELIGION) RIGHTSRELIGION) RIGHTSS.C. DECISION:S.C. DECISION: RULED AGAINST RULED AGAINST OBJECTORS CUZ THEN EVERYONE MIGHT OBJECTORS CUZ THEN EVERYONE MIGHT CLAIM TO BE WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT CLAIM TO BE WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT OUR GOV’T. FROM RAISING AN ARMY AND OUR GOV’T. FROM RAISING AN ARMY AND PROVIDING FOR A COMMON DEFENSEPROVIDING FOR A COMMON DEFENSE

8. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSEW/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

(CASES LIMITING FREE EXERCISE)(CASES LIMITING FREE EXERCISE) MINERSVILLE S.D. V. GOBITIS (1940) –MINERSVILLE S.D. V. GOBITIS (1940) –

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: JEHOVAH WITNESSES JEHOVAH WITNESSES WOULD NOT ALLOW THEIR KIDS TO WOULD NOT ALLOW THEIR KIDS TO SALUTE THE FLAG CUZ THEY ARE NOT SALUTE THE FLAG CUZ THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WORSHIP ANY ‘PAGAN’ ALLOWED TO WORSHIP ANY ‘PAGAN’ SYMBOLS. SCHOOL EXPELLED THE KIDS. SYMBOLS. SCHOOL EXPELLED THE KIDS. THE PARENTS SUEDTHE PARENTS SUEDDECISION:DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF THE S.D. RULED IN FAVOR OF THE S.D. CUZ SALUTING THE FLAG CUZ SALUTING THE FLAG PROMOTEDPROMOTED NATIONAL UNITYNATIONAL UNITY WHICH AT THE TIME WHICH AT THE TIME WASWAS VITAL TO VITAL TO PROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITYPROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITY

8. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSEW/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

(CASE PROTECTING FREE EXERCISE)(CASE PROTECTING FREE EXERCISE) W.V. BD. OF ED. V. BARNETTE (1943) – W.V. BD. OF ED. V. BARNETTE (1943) –

BACKGROUND:BACKGROUND: SAME BACKGROUND AS SAME BACKGROUND AS PREVIOUS CASE EXCEPT IT TOOK PLACE PREVIOUS CASE EXCEPT IT TOOK PLACE IN W.V.IN W.V.

DECISION:DECISION: OVERTURNED GOBITIS RULING OVERTURNED GOBITIS RULING STATING THAT WHILE SALUTING THE STATING THAT WHILE SALUTING THE FLAG WAS VITAL TO FLAG WAS VITAL TO PROMOTING PROMOTING NATIONAL UNITYNATIONAL UNITY, IT WAS , IT WAS NOTNOT VITAL TO VITAL TO PROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITYPROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITY

After the 2 matching After the 2 matching sections, you will also sections, you will also be asked your opinion be asked your opinion on on public school buses public school buses transporting kids to transporting kids to parochial schoolsparochial schools, , prayer in schoolprayer in school, and , and whether or not a whether or not a conscientious objectorconscientious objector should have the right to should have the right to evade the draftevade the draft