Rhode Island Case Summary

(2) Background Information As well as the lawsuit filed by Alton Lemon, this incident involved two other cases that fell under the same issue, Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DisCenso. Both conflicts involved a state law passed, through the Non- public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968, by the state of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. This act gave the government permission to fund religious based or parochial schools. Although the schools provided textbooks and instructional materials for secular subjects, a Pennsylvania instructor believed that this act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Lemon argued that that by providing this money

The Supreme Court case of Engel v. Vitale’s decision was based on the establishment clause. The case of Engel v. Vitale struck down state organized prayer in school. The prayer had government endorsement and was thus considered unconstitutional. The Supreme Court case of Oregon v. Smith used the free exercise clause the basis of their decision.

When it comes to different issues regarding religious organizations and the law the government has made different decisions regarding each depending on what was needed and did not infringe with the first amendment. As the authors conclude that, “The principle of free exercise of religion is not restricted to individuals. Properly understood, it also extends to religious organizations and entities” (Pg. 247). This is indeed what occurs when issues regarding religious property disputes, tax exemptions, the funding religious charities, labor and employment arise and need governmental assistance in order to be

Notаbly absent from the opinion, as it was in Plessy, is any citаtion to a Supreme Court cаse that considered whether the prаctice of segregating schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Аmendment. It was an open question for the Court. The Court аdmitted that the precedent to which it cited involved discriminаtion between whites and blacks rаther thаn other rаces. However, the Court found no аppreciable difference here—"the decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Аmendment."

The issue in this case was whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This case dealt with a New York state law that had required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This law had also allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found that it was objectionable. There was a parent that sued the school on behalf of their child. Their argument was that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable

Edwards v. Aguillard The United States constitution’s First Amendment states that congress cannot make laws that establish or respect a certain religion (Koppelman). Congress also cannot make laws that prevent people from practicing their prefered religion (Koppelman). The court case of Edwards v. Aguillard was imperative in confirming Louisiana’s, Creationism Act, forbade the teaching of the theory of evolution unless accompanied by the theory of creationism, gave credit to this religious theory, and violated the Establishment Clause in regards to the role of religion protected by the First Amendment of the United States of America (“Edwards”).

In this light, the magistrate judge dismissed Newdow’s complaint. Upon this ruling, the case was taken to the Ninth Circuit which was superior to the district court. The circuit affirmed Newdow’s claims and held that as a parent he merited to challenge the school’s practice of the pledge because it interfered with his right and authority to guide the religious education his daughter obtained. The court maintained that Newdow, being the father to the child had the full rights to expose his daughter to his own religious beliefs even if they contradicted that of the mother and he even qualified to seek redress for the injury of his parental interests. The Ninth Circuit Appellate Court further held that the policy of the district school was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause.

The federal government put this in place to keep the government from establishing a national religion and to stop it interfering with state religious issues by stating in the establishment clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Since the schools reciting prayer in the morning were public schools run by the government, they were breaking the First Amendment. This led Steven Engel, along with other parents, suing the school for denying their First Amendment

First Amendment The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise.” These two clauses are referred to as the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause.” The free exercise clause protects the religious beliefs, and to a certain extent, the religious practices of all citizens. The more controversial Establishment Clause prohibits the government from participating in religious activities and/or organizations. Mandatory prayer in schools would constitute an improper establishment of religion and would also interfere with the free exercise rights of those students who did not believe in that particular prayer or prayer in general.

In the past courts have relied on the Establishment Clause to abolish numerous practices in public schools, like offering school-prescribed prayers in the classrooms and at commencement

The First Amendment assures freedom of faith. It also affects everyday life in many ways. The amendment has a ban on state authorized religion. In 2000, the Supreme Court presented public prayer in school as being illegal. When “Pregame Prayer” is visible at schools the establishment clause of the First Amendment is then violated.

In 1962, the Supreme Court case “Engle v. Vitale” ruled that school prayer could no longer be performed in public classrooms because it was offensive to some families’ religious beliefs. The arguments revolved around the different interpretations and understandings of the 1st Amendment that stated, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Those opposed to school prayer claimed that it violated their personal/religious beliefs; because their children were forced to pray to a God they did not believe existed. They thought that religious activities should be separate from government policies and remain a “function to the people themselves.” On the other hand, those supporting

The appellants claimed that the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1879 violated the Fourteenth Amendment and couple’s right to privacy. Issue: Did the Connecticut statue violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and did the Constitution therefore protect the privacy of married couples? Decision of the Court: The Supreme Court did rule the the Connecticut statue was indeed unconstitutional

The families believed, even though the students could be individually excused from the recitation, that the difficulty of being granted permission to be excused from the room during the regents’ prayer made the recitation feel extremely obligatory. Furthermore, they said the prayer certainly violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the

“Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice, it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.” ― G.K. Chesterton Many occasions in the United States history have shown that religion has caused many controversial questions. These questions have brought the American Justice System to a running halt, leading society to begin to ponder about the importance of freedom of religion, true meanings of the free exercise and establishment clause, and if there should be limitations imposed on the free exercise of one’s religious beliefs.