Title: 12-01pp.383
1. In Reynolds v. United. States the Court outlawed _______.
2. In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court ruled that _______.
3. The valid secular policy test helps the Court determine whether there is a legitimate religious
goal in the law that has been passed. _______
4. School-sponsored prayer before football games was ruled unconstitutional in _______.
5. In religious establishment cases the compelling interest test makes it _______.
6. The major change in the Court’s Establishment Clause cases ushered in by Walz v. Tax
Commission of the City of New York involved _______.
7. With the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress _______.
8. County of Allegheny v. ACLU indicated that the Court _______.
9. The test for ruling in religious establishment cases created by Chief Justice Burger is the
_______.
10. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris the Court upheld _______.
11. What did Alexis de Tocqueville observe about religion in America, and how does this relate
to religion in the nation today?
12. Discuss three legal victories Jehovah’s witnesses have won at the U.S. Supreme Court.
13. Explain the belief/action dichotomy and how the Court used it to decide Cantwell v.
Connecticut.
14. Explain the difference between the Valid Secular Policy Test and the Compelling interest
15. How did the Smith test differ from the Sherbert test?
16. What are the parts of the three-pronged test created by the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman?
Provide examples of each.
17. What rationale did the Court use to support its ruling in Gobitis?
18. What special circumstances led the Court to rule in favor of the Massachusetts law in Prince
v. Massachusetts? How was this case used in subsequent cases?
19. Given several examples of how the Lemon test has been applied to both to uphold and to
strike government involvement with religion (use case examples).
20. Why is the Court more tolerant of lack of separation between church and state in colleges
21. How has the Supreme Court’s definition of religion evolved throughout the Court’s history
of deciding First Amendment cases? Be sure to cite specific cases to explain how the evolution
has taken place. Which definition do you think is most appropriate? Why?
22. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) provides the Supreme Court with one of its most famous fithree–
pronged tests.” Since this case, however, the Court has not used the Lemon test consistently, and
the justices have not reached consensus on a definitive standard by which to adjudicate religious
Establishment Clause cases. First, explain the three prongs of the Lemon test and note from
which cases each originated. Then, using cases from class, explain how the Court uses this test to
judge Establishment Clause cases. Next, either defend this test as an appropriate standard, or
argue that another test would be better (one that you have thought of, or one that another justice
supports). Be sure to cite those cases that support your argument and the rationale within them
that is relevant. Finally, explain why other tests are not as good as the one you support, and why
the cases that support these other tests should not be considered relevant.
23. The Court has consistently held that the free exercise of religion is a fundamental right.
However, as with the Establishment Clause, the Court has not given a definitive answer as to
what should be protected religious practices, and what should not be protected. In Cantwell the
Court grounded its decision in a standard of government neutrality, but this standard did not
remain good law for long. Instead, the Court changed its standard to one that restricts the state’s
ability to interfere with the right to free exercise of religion. Explain this standard, as well as how
the Court applied it for several decades. From there, discuss the downfall of this standard, and
what replaced it during the Rehnquist era. In short, discuss the evolution of the different
standards used by the Court, from Cantwell through Smith. Finally, make an argument for where
you believe Free Exercise doctrine is headed in light of the most recent cases we have read in
this area, and considering the makeup of the current Court.
24. Scholars argue that the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Establishment Clause are
often at odds with each other and that, at a minimum, there is tension between them. Do you
agree with this statement? Why or why not? Be sure to cite examples and cases you have read to
justify your answer.
25. In West Sussex, Alabama, district judge Robert Favre runs a very formal courtroom where
justice is handed out quietly but swiftly. The formality of Favre’s courtroom is demonstrated by
the fact that he runs all proceedings with an iron fist. Additionally, the judge begins every court
session day with a prayer that asks God to allow him to act judiciously and fairly when dealing
with defendants. These prayers, while nondenominational, are read by different members of the
clergy each week. The pool of clergy includes several Presbyterian ministers and a few Catholic
priests, but it is mostly comprised of Southern Baptist ministers from the surrounding counties.
These ministers are not paid, but on days that they read the Court’s prayer they are provided with
breakfast at a local coffee shop across from the courthouse.
To help him serve justice, and to fishow his place under God,” Judge Favre carved a replica of
the stone tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were inscribed. He took it upon himself to
hang these tablets behind his bench for all to see. When asked why he put them in his courtroom,
the judge said simply, fiWe must all realize that no matter what our laws may be, we all live
under God’s law and must follow it without question.” While protesters said he should remove
the tablets, Favre refused to do so.
On January 5, 1999, Roger Vinatonka was brought into Judge Favre’s courtroom to defend an
accusation that he had robbed five gas stations in the past month. As this was the first case of the
day, Judge Favre asked Southern Baptist minister Mordecai Brown to read the invocation. After
he finished, Vinatonka’s attorney objected that the reading of the prayer was a violation of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Additionally, he objected to the Ten
Commandments in the courtroom, as these also violated the wall of separation between church
and state. His argument was that it was a violation of his client’s rights to be subjected to such
prayers when he was not Christian, and his beliefs did not include praying to God or following
the Ten Commandments. He also argued that for justice to be conducted fairly in this courtroom
the prayers must be stopped and the Ten Commandments taken down. Favre overruled the
objection and noted that even though Vinatonka was not a Christian, these were ideals by which
all fired–blooded” Americans should live. Because Vinatonka waived his right to a jury trial the
judge decided the case and found the defendant guilty. After telling him, fiThou shall not steal,”
he sentenced Vinatonka to three years in a state prison. On appeal Vinatonka’s attorney argued
that the trial was unfair and biased because it was conducted under the auspices of Christian
tenets that Vinatonka did not recognize, which was a direct violation of the Establishment
Clause. The appeals court in Alabama affirmed the conviction and said there was no First
Amendment problem. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
As a justice on the Court, how would you rule given the line of Establishment Clause cases
decided by the Court? Should the judge be allowed to continue the prayers? Why or why not? Is
there a way that the prayers could be altered so that they would not violate the Establishment
Clause? How would you deal with the issue of the Ten Commandments? Should they be taken
down, or can they stay as a symbol of respect for God? Finally, should Vinatonka be granted a
new trial? Why or why not? Be sure to cite cases from class to support your answers. There is no
right answer, but all your answers must be logical and supported with case law.
26. At 1:15 p.m. on Friday, August 15, 2013, a small tornado touched down just outside
Springfield, Minnesota. The tornado caused substantial property damage, injured scores of
people, and resulted in ten fatalities. The following Sunday, Adrian Peterson, a local high school
teacher, tweeted: fiEvery day at 1:15 p.m., until the town is fully recovered, everyone in
Springfield should tweet #prayingforthevictims.”
In the past, Peterson had used Twitter extensively to communicate with students about their
assignments and other school announcements. As a result, many of Peterson’s students follow
him on Twitter. At 1:15 p.m. on Monday Peterson and fifteen of his students tweeted
fi#prayingforthevictims.” That afternoon, the Springfield High School Morning Prayer Group
(MPG), an official school student group, launched an Internet campaign to convince other
students to participate in the daily Twitter prayers. Each day that week, at the specified time, an
increasing number of high school students tweeted fi#prayingforthevictims.”
In addition, MPG collaborated with the Muslim Student Association, the Mormon Faith Club,
the Jewish Student Union, and the Springfield High Humanists to organize an official prayer
event to be held one -week after the day of the tornado. The event called for all students to dress
in black and to simultaneously stop what they are doing at 1:15 p.m., take a moment of silence,
bow their heads, and tweet fi#prayingforthevictims.” Peterson, who had been re-tweeting that
message all week, participated in the silent tweet-prayer but did not assist in coordinating it. The
school’s official Twitter feed also used the fiprayingforthevictims” hashtag on Friday, but the
school administration was similarly uninvolved in the event planning.
Kevin Love, an 18 eighteen-year-old senior at Springfield High and an outspoken atheist, did not
participate in any of the Twitter prayers. He filed suit against Peterson and the school in federal
district court, claiming the defendants’ participation in, and support of, the Twitter prayers
violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. He asked the court to enjoin the
school and its teachers from sending any more religiously motivated tweets. He also asked the
court to require that the school institute a policy banning the use of social networking sites
during school hours by students for religious purposes. The district court ruled for Love, and the
Eighth Circuit Court affirmed that decision. Peterson and the school appealed to the Supreme
Court, arguing that the tweets were nonsectarian and completely voluntary, and that the tweets
sent by Peterson and the school did not amount to an endorsement of religion. They further
argued that the injunction would prohibit the teachers’ and students’ free exercise of religion and
freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment.
You are the fiswing” justice on the U.S. Supreme Court for this case. Four justices side with the
school and Peterson; four others want to rule for Love. Your vote, therefore, will make the
majority in either direction, and you are designated to write the majority opinion. Your goal is to
craft a plausible, persuasive, and realistic majority opinion in this case. Be sure to cite cases from
class to support your position. There is no right answer, but all your arguments must be logical
and supported with case law. Be specific about what actions are or are not constitutional.