The Establishment Clause Analysis

Religion is one of the most controversial issues in society today. The concern of allowing prayer in schools is an on-going debate and has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Religious school clubs, after school activities, curriculums, and moments of silence during school are just a few of the court cases that judges have administered. People in favor of prayer in schools believe that their children can only learn certain values through religious practice. On the other hand, an individual against religious practice in schools views this issue as an infringement on his or her children’s rights as Americans.

          ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

In the First Amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is known as the Establishment Clause, and it has been a controversial topic of many Supreme Court cases throughout America’s history. There are three different methods of constitutional interpretation--textualism, intentionalism, and pragmatism—that have shaped the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is usually interpreted in two different ways: “The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions—federal, state, or local—that promote religion,” and that “The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion.” There is a common metaphor that accompanies the Establishment Clause know as the “wall of separation.” The Establishment Clause has this “wall” in order to keep the church and state separate. This is a reoccurring theme I have seen develop throughout various court cases. I studied four different cases that made it to the Supreme Court: Everson vs. Board of Education, Lynch vs. Donnelly, Lee vs. Weisman, and Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe. During the brief period of me studying these four cases involving the Establishment Clause, I have inferred that pragmatism has indicated the utmost dominance in shaping the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause.

He also stated that students may offer a non-denominational prayer at graduation ceremonies and football games. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and it was determined that the school would adopt a policy where the students would vote by way of a secret ballot as to whether or not to have a benediction at the graduation. If the conclusion was yes, then they would elect students to deliver "nonsectarian, nonproselytizing invocations and or benedictions. The Fifth Circuit ruled that High School graduation only happened once in our lifetime and therefore it could be recognized with a prayer. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court while the question as to whether the defendant’s policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the First Amendment’s Establishment

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution founded the concrete belief that government and faith-based institutions must and will remain separate from one another. This section of the first amendment disavows the U.S. government to establish or sanction any system of organized faiths or religions upon the people or to outlaw or disgrace any systems of organized faiths as well. But the line discerning the legitimacy of a faith and the true extent of the government's power over faith-based organizations has only remained to become muddled over the past 240 years of its establishment. Over the years, the ideology and true intent of the founding fathers had remained in question, where some believe the amendment addresses to the general

Schempp 374 US 203 (1963), 2015). The Schempp family were Unitarians, so they objected to some ideas in the Bible. They had the option to excuse their children from the Bible reading, but then their children would have missed out on some of the morning announcements. (Supreme Court Cases, 2015) So as to not hinder their children?s learning opportunities, the Schempp family brought their issue to the State appeals court. Later, the State appeals court took the side of the Schempp family and stated the Abington School District violated the Establishment Clause, which is a clause in the First Amendment that prohibits the government from establishing a religion. (Supreme Court Cases, 2015) When the issue was brought to the Supreme Court in 1963, the question was simple, did the Pennsylvania law and Abington 's policy violate the religious freedom of their students that is protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015)?

This Court found that the wall between religion and government was substantially breached because “delegating a governmental power to religious institutions inescapably implicates the Establishment Clause.” Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 123 (1982).

In 1947, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the defendant in a case named Everson v Board of Education. In this case, the Majority opinion laid out an interpretation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution for the first time in regards to how it should be applied. As such, it would set the precedence for the way that the Supreme Court would look at the First Amendment even until today. Although in this particular instance, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religion and schools, this new definition of the First Amendment would go on to be used against religion in the American public school system for years to come until it would be almost entirely eradicated from public schools today. While many scholars have written on this case and have taken a stand on whether or not the interpretation is poor or good, they all agree on the impact that it had on Supreme Court decision’s moving forward.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has represented a test to those courts looked with clashes amongst religion and the legislature. The proviso, which ensures the free exercise of religion, neglects to characterize religion, leaves its defensive parameters indistinct, and welcomes an extensive variety of understandings. Deciphering free exercise turns out to be particularly dubious - and particularly vital - in a socially various country, for example, the United States, when individuals from a religious minority look for

Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church-related educational institutions"?

We hold that the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit erred in holding that the town’s legislative prayer practice violated the Establishment Clause. Furthermore, we Reverse the holding of the Court of Appeals and find the practice of legislative prayer in this case to be in accordance with the Constitution and its Establishment clause.

In the wake of seemingly contradictory rulings concerning the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, the Supreme court had to create a series of tests to create consistency for future cases and lower courts. For Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the Court created the Lemon test and the Endorsement test. For the Free Exercise Clause, the Court created the Undue Burden test, the Least Restrictive Means test, and the Compelling Interest test. Although the Court seemed to devise the Compelling Interest test to consistently apply in religious free exercise case, the cases of Sherbert v Verner, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Thomas v. Review Board, and Goldman v. Weinberger demonstrated that the Court can not consistently apply the Compelling Interest test where it seems relatively arbitrary and answers no practical questions. What are the standards of a compelling interest? Who has the burden of proof for demonstrating a compelling interest? Both of these questions are not adequately answered in the Court’s jurisprudence and reverts the situation back to before the compelling interest was made.

Therefore, the Lemon Test is a three-part assessment tool designed by the government to asses the following practice or policy violations of the Establishment Clause: “a) its purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion, b) its primary effect is to aid or inhibit religion or, c) it either creates excessive administrative entanglements between church and state

This policy is “the establishment clause of the first amendment [that] has been interpreted to prohibit any aid to religion” (Schwarz). The establishment clause is a vital tool to American politics, because it serves as the backbone in deciding what to favor and what to avoid. The clause clearly states that aid or recognition to any religion is prohibited. The prohibition to recognize any religion is a secular piece of law because it does in fact ensure that every citizen will be taken into account as equal to one another. However, the clause stirred trouble in the court case Lemon v Kurtzman. The court case dealt with whether or not the government should be allowed to aid a religious school. The case was tightly wounded around questioning the purpose of the establishment clause. “The court was obliged to ‘draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the establishment clause was intended to afford protection: “sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity” (Simson). The establishment clause faced a tough situation in determining what should be done. The decision was difficult because aiding the school would violate the clause, but not aiding the school would violate the school’s equal protection. Ultimately, the ruling was that it was permissible to aid, but only on the account of

Since the approval of the 1st Amendment in 1791, which provides in part,” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..” the role of religion in the public sphere has been the subject matter for a long contradictory controversy varying from the Jeffersonian separationist views that call for a “Yuuge wall“ between state and church to the accommodationists who see religion as an integral part of the national heritage. The U.S. Supreme Court is vested with the task to tackle this question through cases where religious symbols being displayed in public spaces had been challenged. To sum up the current status of the Supreme Court position on this matter, it would be helpful to anticipate that on a potential claim. The constitutionality of Moses statue above the Hinds County Courthouse in Jackson, Mississippi .