Wisconsin V. Yoder Case Study

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts took note that the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ruling decided that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the Chief Justice also relied upon the precedent set forth in Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) which explained how "the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults." Additionally, the rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment," according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988). The special circumstances in Morse v. Frederick were first that the school has a policy that specifically forbids advocating illegal drug use due to the risks it imposes on other students, and second that principal Morse was forced to decide in the moment whether or not she should act.

Decision: The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first

Opinion: The court ruled that the University of California's policy was unconstitutional. They argued that a state is permitted to use race as a factor, however

MILLERSBURG — A Big Prairie man on Monday was sentenced to local jail time for selling marijuana to a confidential informant working with the Holmes County Sheriff's Office in June.

Despite adopting this test, the Supreme Court has been quick to disregard the test and lower the wall separating issues of state and faith as long as educational barriers such as the banishment of school prayer remained untouched. This quick change was evident in the 1981 ruling by the court that a law that prohibited the use of public school properties and campuses for religious purposes unconstitutional was deemed itself unconstitutional. This slow reduction of the separating wall was evident in many more cases through the Supreme Court's following history; cases such as deeming acts of the University of Virginia unconstitutional, who violated the free speech of a fundamentalist Christian group by not funding their magazine. Other following cases slowly deemed the funding of Christian organizations and schools more acceptable as Christian books and financial aid to said students, was deemed constitutionally sound if the aid went to the school, not to the students. These establishment issues not only of education but on the use of religious displays and depictions in

Citation: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit, 1986 795 F2.d 1368, cert. granted, Supreme Court of the United States, Eighth Circuit, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

Amish children are considered to be done furthering their education after 8th grade. At this point, the young women are to learn how to manage the household. Likewise, the young men learn how to manage and maintain the farm. Amish people do not allow people to join the military, because “they follow the biblical aspect of love thy neighbor and forbids violence and active military service” (AmishCountry.org, 2015). Alternative treatments are what they use instead of seeking professional help, but when that fails they do what is necessary (AmishCountry.org, 2015). “Amish pay state, federal and county taxes and usually refuse Social Security benefits” (AmishCountry.org, 2015). Their faith and religion makes it mandatory for them to care for their

Verner. Sherbert was fired because she failed to show up to work on Saturdays because of practices in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. She was denied unemployment benefits because her religious practice was not a good enough reason to fail to show up. In this particular case, the court held that Sherbert’s First Amendment right was burdened, that there was no “compelling interest” being challenged, and that it was not protecting said interest in the “least restrictive” way possible. The court established the Sherbert test, or standard, for reviewing legislation that conflicted with the Free Exercise Clause. The court also implemented the Sherbert test when ruling in Wisconsin v. Yoder. In this case, the court held that the state did not have a compelling interest to require that children from an Amish to attend a public school. As mentioned previously, the majority in Oregon v. Smith completely disregarded this standard and reverted to the “neutral law”

The ruling was decided at 5-4 that this did not violate the constitution. Reimbursement of the parents is only a part

When defending himself to his principal, he used the first amendment but was still not taken seriously and was then required to see his guidance counselor for months afterward. This high school student then wrote a letter to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) to ask for help. The ACLU had been searching for a “plaintiff” for many years. After taking this argument to the court, Abington school district defended themselves by saying that “Bible reading was not a religious practice” and that students who did not want to listen to the scripture reading did not have to, they also argued that the “practice need not to be outlawed because the Constitution does not require government to be ‘hostile to religion’” (The Battle pg. 167). To the school board also argued that “to outlaw Bible reading would blaze a trail that would eliminate from public life customs that ‘are now and have long been cherished and accepted by a vast majority of the people (The Battle pg. 167). The Schempp received harassment and abuse from other citizens living in Abbington because of their support of the end to scripture reading. In 1959, the federal district court found that this practice was unconstitutional but the school board quickly found a loophole. The school district then decided to excuse students not wanting to participate in the reading

Yoder, the Supreme Court thought about a conflict between Amish religious feelings and state academic necessities. Three families having a place with two Amish groups - the Old Amish religion and the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church- - declined to send their youngsters to government funded school past the eighth grade. In spite of the fact that state law required all kids to go to class until age 16, the guardians of Frieda Yoder, Barbara Miller, and Vernon Yutzy demanded that their religion denied them from enabling their kids to go to secondary school. The Amish felt that presenting their kids to the standard, "common" qualities instructed there, for example, rivalry and realism, would undermine the religious lessons vital to their elective way of life and world view. They favored rather to set up their kids at home for the farming and residential interests that anticipated them as grown-ups in the Amish people group. Accordingly they looked for exclusion from state law under the Free Exercise

Procedural History: This case began as a suit brought by Dr. Harold Glucksberg, a Washington State physician, with several of his colleagues, a number of their patients who were terminally ill, and the non-profit organization Compassion in Dying, against the State of Washington as represented by its Attorney General. The suit, which was filed in federal district court, challenged the constitutionality of a Washington law that prohibited anyone from promoting or assisting another to attempt suicide. The district court agreed with Dr. Glucksberg and declared the law unconstitutional. The State of Washington appealed the district court’s decision to the Court of Appeals to

The background of the case is a conflict between the state and the federal government over the creation of a minimum drinking age. The conflict was pursued when a car with four friends, all of age nineteen on a summer evening in 1984, crosses the state line into South Dakota where they could legally purchase beer. During the year of 1984, lawmakers in Washington D.C. we’re fortifying the National Minimum Drink Age Amendment which proclaimed that states who refuse to raise their drinking age to 21 would be deducted from 5% federal highway funds by the Secretary of Transportation. South Dakota challenged the rule because it is a state that legalized persons 19 years of age to procure alcohol. The law in question was whether Congress was in violation of the Twenty-first Amendment which granted states the elite power to regulate alcohol.

5-4 in favor of Lochner. Justice Peckham wrote the majority opinion. Reasoning 1. The law interferes with the right of contract between the employer and employed concerning the number of hours of labor.