1. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach who engaged in public prayers on the 50-yard line after games. The Court determined that Kennedy's actions constituted private speech rather than government speech, even though they occurred on school premises during official duties. This distinction was crucial in the decision.
Justice Gorsuch emphasized that historical practices and understandings should guide evaluations of religious expressions, moving away from the previously used Lemon test. The decision affirms the Court's current interpretation favoring individual religious rights under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses, influencing the interaction between personal religious practices and institutional policies.
Justice Sotomayor's dissent expressed concerns about the potential coercion of students, arguing that the decision blurred lines between state and religion.
2. Carson v. Makin (2022)
The Supreme Court's ruling in Carson v. Makin emphasized that states cannot discriminate against religious institutions in public benefits programs. The case centered on Maine's tuition assistance program, which excluded religious schools from participating.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, stated that once a state chooses to subsidize private education, it cannot disqualify certain schools solely based on their religious status. The decision builds upon previous rulings that stress the importance of religious neutrality in providing public benefits.
Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent raised concerns about maintaining the balance between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent asserted that the ruling continued to erode the separation between church and state.
This ruling has established a precedent that may influence future cases involving the intersection of state funding and religious institutions, ensuring that faith-based organizations are not unfairly deprived of access to public resources.
3. Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021)
In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Catholic Social Services (CSS) in a case involving foster care placements. The dispute began when Philadelphia stopped referrals to CSS for its foster care program because the organization would not certify same-sex couples as foster parents, citing religious beliefs.
In a unanimous decision, the Court determined that Philadelphia had violated CSS's Free Exercise rights. Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the city's contract with foster care agencies allowed for individualized exemptions, yet it did not extend such an exemption to CSS's religious practices.
The ruling emphasized that when a law permits exceptions on a case-by-case basis, it must do so fairly and cannot single out religious beliefs for disparate treatment. This decision is crucial in solidifying the protections for religious practices against discriminatory governmental regulations.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Thomas, wrote a concurring opinion suggesting that the court should have gone further to overturn the precedent set by Employment Division v. Smith.
4. American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n (2019)
American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n addressed the status of religious symbols and monuments situated on public land. The case centered on a large cross-shaped World War I memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland, which had stood for nearly a century to honor fallen soldiers.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the American Legion, allowing the cross to remain. Justice Samuel Alito emphasized that removing such monuments after decades could be perceived as a hostile act against religion, rather than a move towards neutrality. The ruling diverged from the Lemon test, favoring a more comprehensive view that takes into account the traditions and historical prominence of the monument.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent contended that the cross distinctly symbolizes Christianity and, when maintained on public land by the government, conveys a preference for that faith.
This decision underscores the Court's recognition of the deep-seated historical and cultural facets of certain religious symbols, indicating a broader interpretation of the First Amendment that respects both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses.
5. Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020)
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue further establishes the principle that states must treat religious schools equitably when providing public benefits. The case originated from a Montana tax credit program that allowed taxpayer donations to private school scholarships but excluded religious schools from participating.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Montana's exclusion of religious schools from the scholarship program was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts stated that once a state decides to subsidize private education, it cannot exclude schools from the program solely because they are religious.
The Court's opinion builds upon its prior rulings, underscoring a consistent message: religious neutrality must guide the distribution of public benefits. The decision invalidates the discriminatory application of Blaine Amendments, which many states have historically used to deny funding to religious institutions.
- Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent argued that the ruling disrupts the delicate balance between the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor added that the decision undermines the state's ability to comply with its constitutional mandate to avoid state-sponsored religious activities.
This ruling has far-reaching implications for educational funding programs nationwide, ensuring that religious schools have equal access to public funds designated for private education.
These landmark cases demonstrate the Supreme Court's commitment to upholding the principles enshrined in the Constitution. By affirming individual religious rights and ensuring equal treatment for religious institutions, these rulings reflect an adherence to the values set forth by the Founding Fathers. How might these decisions shape the future interpretation of the First Amendment? What challenges might arise in balancing religious liberty with other constitutional protections?
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
- Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)