Upgrade to remove ads
POLI 411 Midterm
Terms in this set (35)
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
Premise: Barron owned a wharf in Baltimore, and construction debris from the city made his wharf very shallow--Barron sued the city
Barron argument: Violation of 5th Amendment--eminent domain--he needed to be compensated
SC Ruling: Constitution's general language only applies to national government, Barron would need to look to state Bill of Rights
Outcome: BoR seen as only limiting Congress
Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)
Premise: Many slaughterhouses dumped carcasses in the river and Louisiana ordered the closing of all of them and opened a state-owned slaughterhouse
Butchers' argument: 14th Amendment protected their right to be a butcher, and state was infringing (question to be answered was what privileges can't the state interfere with)
SC Ruling: Butchers lose--states can't interfere with very few privileges (only those you have as a US citizen, like protection abroad); need to go to state to argue the right to their profession
Outcome: Vey small view of privileges and immunities clause
Palko v. Connecticut (1937)
Premise: Palko charged w/ 1st degree murder but convicted of 2nd. CT believed that the judge made a mistake and the state SC tries him again
Palko argument: This is double jeopardy and violates due process clause of 14th
SC Ruling: Recognition that some rights protected under due process apply to states if they are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty; however, this case was not double jeopardy, but just a mistake.
3 views of incorporation
Selective incorporation: Palko
Total: Justice Harlan (inalienable rights=BoR, so it must apply to states)
Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)
Premise: Law required notary to take an oath involving God, but Torcaso refused
SC Ruling: This is not allowed. Can't force one to believe something and state can't regulate belief/non-belief even though being a notary is not required. This is a religious test and violates Establishment Clause of 1st and 14th.
McDaniel v. Paty (1978)
Premise: TN Constitution disqualified ministers from being legislators, and Paty tried to have McDaniel removed from the ticket
SC Ruling: All have right to free exercise of religion and TN encroached on this right
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993)
Premise: Animal sacrifice was a principal form of devotion for the Church. Hialeah called an emergency meeting and banned sacrifice before the church could be built
SC Ruling: Law suppresses and targets Santarians, esp. because the law specifically mentions rituals in prohibiting sacrifice. The city can protect health in other ways (this is not the next-best alternative)
Locke v. Davey (2004)
Premise: WA giving out scholarships to in-state students, but couldn't use the money for theology. A winner wanted to use the money for this.
SC Ruling: Scholarship restriction upheld. WA program does not deny ministers anything or criminalizing anything. Essentially, there is no burden, they just chose to not help.
Reynolds v. US (1879)
Premise: Reynolds was Mormon and was obligated to take multiple wives.
Question: Could Congress outlaw polygamy on federal land?
SC Ruling: Upheld denial. No indication that the state doesn't like Mormons, just polygamy, which has always been outlawed. Allowing polygamy for religion could lead to a slippery slope
US v. Lee (1987)
Premise: Old order Amish failed to file social security taxes because they felt that social security was sinful
SC Ruling: Amish must pay. The law does not specifically burden the Amish. Allowing the Amish to not file taxes could lead to a slippery slope.
Bob Jones University v. US (1983)
Premise: US withheld tax-free status because BJU forbade interracial couples, which was seen as racial discrimination.
BJU Argument: Nothing in constitution prevents private discrimination and the free exercise clause applied.
SC Ruling: Since racial discrimination goes against government interest and since tax exemptions go to institutions that better society, this status can be withheld. Government is not against Christians, but is against racism.
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
Premise: Smith fired from rehab center for using peyote, which was illegal in Oregon.
Question: Can government punish people for using a controlled substance as part of a religious ritual? Can the state make an exception for religion?
SC Ruling: Law upheld. Oregon is not outlawing peyote because of religion, but because they don't want people using it. They can make an exception but are not required to.
Purposeful burden test
Must be a compelling state interest, least restrictive alternative, example: Lukumi
Incidental burden test
Must be a legitimate state interest, rationally related to goal, example: Smith
Larson v. Valente (1982)
Premise: Only religious institutions that get 50% of donations from outside their congregations must file reports. Unification Church said this law favored some churches over others.
SC Ruling: Strikes down MN law because it violates the Establishment Clause--must use strict scrutiny here. Even assuming the law is needed, it is still not the next best alternative--law should deal with $, not %.
Lynch v. Donelly (1984)
Premise: Pawtucket, RI put up a Christmas display with nativity scene downtown. Group complained that this was promoting a religion. State argued it was to bring people downtown.
SC Ruling: If a fully informed observer saw this display, she would not think it is promoting Christianity. Pawtucket was allowed to keep the display.
McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)
Premise: 10 Commandments were put up in a courthouse. When ACLU challenged this, the courthouse put up more displays about historical foundation of laws.
McCreary County Argument: Same is Lynch--the display had a secular purpose
SC Ruling: The county said the reason was secular only after someone had complained, so the SC sided with the ACLU--there was no true secular purpose here.
Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
Premise: 10 Commandments, among other pieces of Texas history, were put on display outside of Austin capital building.
SC Ruling: Valid secular purpose that displays Texas's history.
Court focuses on actual, not stated purpose, and asks "what would a fully informed observer think?" If secular, okay. If religious, not okay.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
Premise: State tried to allow people to leave public schools in Cleveland and go anywhere they want, including private Christian schools, which many went to.
Question: What is the effect of the program? Religious?
SC Ruling: Even though religious schools benefit, the aid is neutral because it was provided to a broad spectrum of people, and it was the people that decided who got to benefit.
Thornton v. Calder (1985)
Premise: Manager required to work on Sunday, but Thornton refused, citing a state law that said anyone choosing not to work on the Sabbath could not be fired.
Question: Is state advancing religion by allowing sabbath off?
SC Ruling: Violates the Establishment Clause because a benefit occurs only because of religion.
Larkin v. Grendel's Den (1982)
Premise: MA law allowed schools and churches to reject liquor licenses of nearby bars/restaurants.
Grendel Argument: This was excessive entanglement between church and state.
SC Ruling: Excessive entanglement, and the law was struck down.
Hortado v. California (1884)
Premise: Hortado killed a man, but did not get a jury trial because CA law said it could occur in front of a judge
Hortado Argument: Had a right to a jury trial via the BoR (5th) and the 14th Amendment of due process
CA Argument: Barron v. Baltimore applies, so need to look at state law
SC Ruling: Due process protects individuals from states encroaching on fundamental rights, and CA gave Hortado due process via trial with judge. Therefore, the state's jury trial was upheld.
Twinning v. New Jersey (1908)
Premise: Twinning refused to take the stand, but a judge made reference to this to the jury
Twinning Argument: 5th Amendment protects self-incrimination
SC Ruling: Right to self-incrimination is not protected by the BoR; however, some pieces may be applied to states if they are fundamental and inalienable rights (self-incrimination is not one of these)
Key Outcome: Set the stage for incorporation of fundamental rights
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
Premise: Duncan (black) may have hit a white child (disputed). He was refused a jury case and a judge found him guilty
Duncan Argument: Right to a jury is fundamental, and 6th Amendment should apply because of due process (14th)
LA Argument: Jury is not a fundamental right, and law says jail time <6 months do not require jury.
SC Ruling: Right to a jury is fundamental.
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
Premise: Cantwell was soliciting about Jehovah's Witnesses, but did not have a certificate to do so. In CT, the Public Welfare Council determines whether or not a cause is religious or just charity.
Cantwell Argument: CT violating freedom of worship and speech and press--violates 14th because 14th protects liberty to worship from state intervention.
CT Argument: State has right to protect against fraudulent solicitation and it is reasonable to let the Public Welfare Council decide.
SC Ruling: Cantwell was deprived of liberty w/o due process. The 14th makes the 1st apply because people have complete right to believe and most freedoms to act.
Key Outcome: Valid secular policy test: if the government has a valid secular reason, religion is not exempt.
Key Outcome: Free exercise clause is applicable to state and local governments
Sherbet v. Verner (1963)
Premise: Sherbert's factory required him to work on Saturdays, but her religion said no. She tried to claim unemployment but was denied because she failed to accept suitable work.
Sherbert Argument: Denying unemployment is economic coercion to leave religion, and requiring work on Saturday but not Sunday is discriminatory and arbitrary.
Verner Argument: Policy is needed to achieve secular interest and have a stable labor force
SC Ruling: Ineligibility of benefits derived solely from religion.
Key Outcome: Strict scrutiny
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Premise: WI had compulsory education until 16, but Amish refused to send kids to public school. Amish won in WI SC but state petitioned review.
WI Argument: Compulsory education laws predated the Amish and the state needed to protect children from ignorance.
Yoder Argument: Law interferes with free exercise of religion, and precedent should be Sherbert v. Verner
SC Ruling: State's interest is not too paramount to infringe, especially because the Amish are not ignorant. State would destroy free exercise of religion.
City of Boerne v. Flores
Premise: Church wanted to expand, but city said it could not demolish the old church because it was a historic site.
Boerne Argument: RFRA violates separation fo powers--legislature cannot interpret the constitution. Oregon v. Smith should be precedent, and RFRA not valid exercise of power to enforce the 14th.
Flores Argument: Protected under 14th and RFRA protects permissible protection
SC Ruling: Statute exceeds Congress's power; city wins because RFRA is overreaching
Everson v. Board (1947)
Premise: Taxpayer money going to transportation for kids after school, including Catholic schools
Everson Argument: Public money supporting religion violates 1st and 14th
Board Argument: Aid does not go to a religious institution and it supports compulsory education. Precedent set in Cochran v. Board (textbooks to all schools)
SC Ruling: This la does not give special benefits to anyone. The aid was secular, indirect, and the state was neutral.
Abbington v. Schempp (1963)
Premise: School in PA read 10 verses and Lord's Prayer every day. Schempp read from the Quran and was suspended.
Abbington Argument: The prayer is secular in nature and nobody is forced to do it.
Schempp Argument: The Bible is religious and violates the Establishment Clause. Those who refuse must take public action and leave.
SC Ruling: The act is religious and violates the Establishment Clause.
Key Outcome: Benchmark was developed: if purpose/primary effect is secular, it is okay. Cannot advance/inhibit religion.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Early v. DiCenso
Premise: Lemon sues Kurtzman, the state superintendent, over law that says nonpublic schools can get money for secular expenses. DiCenso challenged RI law that supplemented private teachers' salaries as long as they were not religious teachers (although many taught in religious schools)
Lemon/DiCenso Argument: Violates secular purpose in Schempp, violates tax being used for religion and is excessive entanglement
Kurtzman/Early Argument: Absolute separation of ch/st is not required, and the purpose is secular. If private schools failed, public schools could not handle it.
SC Ruling: 3 tests: must be secular (pass), primary effect doesn't promote/inhibit religion (?), no excessive entanglement (fail)
Key Outcome: Lemon test (above)
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
Premise: LA law made it mandatory that if evolution was taught, creationism had to be taught, too.
Edwards Argument: Creationism is no less scientific than evolution, law serves a seular purpose, and previous laws allow references to God in schools.
Aguillard Argument: Creationism Act is primarily religious and implementation requires entanglement
SC Ruling: Lemon Test showed that the law was primarily religious, so the Establishment Clause was violated because government money was going to religion
Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)
Premise: Town had member of clergy read a prayer at monthly meetings to give meetings a deliberate tone. Could be any religion but was most often Christian.
Greece Argument: Legislative prayer dates back to founding; no specific religion endorsed.
Galloway Argument: For some in public, attendance is mandatory, so this is coercion. Prayers are not inclusive, and dominant Christian prayers endorse religion.
SC Ruling: Legislative prayer part of US, town made reasonable attempt to get non-Christian clergy, no coercion is occurring (offense is not the same is coercion). The prayer serves a secular ceremonial purpose.
Key Outcome: Differs from school cases because kids are more impressionable
Hosanna-Tabor Church and School v. EEOC (2012)
Premise: Lutheran church prefers to hire "called" teachers who are ministers. Penich was layed but became called. She had narcolepsy, and when she was ready to return, church said no. Penich threatened with lawsuit, and church terminated her in part for this because they liked to deal with disputes within the church.
Church Argument: Establishment Clause gives authority to church to determine who is minister. Free Exercise Clause protects church to pick who does what religious functions. Perich would be an unwanted minister, and this would be entanglement.
EEOC Argument: Gov has compelling interest to eradicate discrimination. Free Exercise does not prevent anti-discrimination laws. Application of ADA is not excessive entanglement.
SC Ruling: Ministerial exception applies. Church would be forced to take a minister if government ruled other way. Government cannot impose anti-discrimination laws on decision of religious group to terminate a minister. This was a very narrow decision.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Amend 1 - Final Exam
Curry test 3
Religion and Constitution
8.2: Freedom of Religion
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
POLI 411 Midterm 3
POLI 411 Midterm 2
ECON 450 Midterm Formulas
POLI 208 Final
OTHER QUIZLET SETS
Test #3- Resource Management/ Forestry/ Land Use
Humanities Final Exam (New Material)