Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe. This case concerning prayer in public
|
|
- Merry Casey
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Embury 1 Kathleen Embury College Level C and E 6 th Period Supreme Court Writing Assignment 3/20/14 On June 19 th, 2000, Supreme Court Justice Stevens declared the majority verdict for the case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe. This case concerning prayer in public schools would become a landmark decision in relation to lawful execution of the First Amendment rights concerning religion and the restrictions of the Establishment Clause. The majority stated that the student in question s ability to say a prayer in front of his classmates at a football game was unconstitutional and exceeded these limitations. Thus, they decided in favor of the petitioner, the anonymous Doe, against the school district and their policy that allowed the student speaker to offer a prayer. This conclusion was incorrectly decided as it distorts the very meaning of the Establishment Clause while setting dangerous precedents for Americans ability to practice their religion without excessive involvement from the government. Prior to the case, the school district had created a policy in which one student could be elected by the student body to say a message or invocation before a football game to solemnize the event, to promote good sportsmanship and student safety, and to establish the appropriate environment for the competition. 1 This was a revised version of their previous policy that mentioned prayer. When the elected student decided to say a prayer at a school game, two 1 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion
2 Embury 2 students and their parents argued that the act exceeded the limits that the Establishment Clause places on prayer in the public school. Because of this, they took the case to the Supreme Court. Deciding in support of the petitioner, Doe, the majority stated that the district had involved themselves in a student election decision. The policy stated that the student body would decide whether or not to have an election, and who the speaker would be at the football game. Since this policy was implemented by the district, the court decision ruled that they were unconstitutionally involving themselves. They argued that, while the policy did not say the word prayer, it did say other phrases that imply religious meaning, like solemnize the event, and invocation. 2 Also, the speech would be given using school property where almost everyone in the district could hear it, including the faculty. For these reasons, the majority said that the religious statement would be government endorsed and not private speech, which is unprotected by the First Amendment and violates the Establishment Clause. 3 These arguments were refuted by the dissent, which stated that the elected student chose what to say outside of the school s and government s influence, and therefore his or her speech would not be governmentally motivated. 4 The dissent additionally refuted the argument that the policy supported a religious association whole-heartedly, as the phrases solemnize the event, promote good sportsmanship and student safety, and establish the appropriate environment for the competition could be taken as secular statements. 5 Secular interpretations, according to the dissent, should always be considered above religious ones since many secular phrases could 2 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.
3 Embury 3 be understood as religious. 6 As Chief Justice Rehnquist stated, Sporting events often begin with a solemn rendition of our national anthem, with its concluding verse, And this be our motto: In God is our trust. 7 The inference that the district supported a majority election in which a student was chosen based on whether or not he would say a prayer is incorrect. Instead, the twofold election allowed students to select someone perhaps based on whether the person would give a prayer, but also possibly because of his/her popularity or ability to speak. 8 Furthermore, since the courts ruled that this election was unacceptable, they also should have invalidated other school elections in which those chosen, such as Prom King or Queen, are allowed to make speeches that include a prayer. 9 In such circumstances as these there is no violation of the Establishment clause, as there was not one with the matter of the case that was at hand. Another argument of the majority was that it was unfair for the speaker to be elected by a majority of the student body as minorities would not be represented. They justified this position by saying that one of America s core beliefs is that everyone should participate and have a say (in government, etc.). They further stated that since the speech was to be given at such a big event, peer pressure would force some students into having to make a hard decision between going to a popular sports event where they may be offended or uncomfortable, and not participating in the school spirit. This would imply government coercion of the social pressure concerning adoption of religion, and thus violate the Establishment Clause. 10 These points become clearly unsound when looking at commonly accepted American and governmental practices. The majority s statement that the policy forced children to be in an 6 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion 7 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, dissenting opinion < 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid.
4 Embury 4 environment where they would hear religious statements/prayers that could make them uncomfortable is invalid as students could listen while others pray during a normal day at school. In these situations, those who pray are not punished for their actions. It is each student s decision whether or not to listen or participate. Also, many of America s customary elections are decided by a majority vote or in a similar way. 11 For example, the 17th Amendment states that senators shall be elected in this way by popular vote. The argument that the school district s election process was not fair nullifies such elections and should therefore apply to all election processes if the court is to believe so. If they were to take on this view, America s system would be changed drastically, most likely against popular opinion and not for the better. In addition to the mainly constitutionally based arguments, the majority brought in several other cases from the school district to further their point. Such situations with the district included the following: a prayer at graduation, encouragement of religious clubs, the giving out of Gideon Bibles on school ground, and the rebuking of children that held minority religious beliefs. This information was used to show how the district was going out of its way to support Christianity. These arguments, however, were beyond the point. The case was about the district s policy of having an elected student to speak at football games. The Court was not hearing a case about these additional procedures, and as far as they were concerned, nobody had brought about complaints about the policies, at least not enough to bring the issues to the courts. Therefore, it was inappropriate of the majority to reference this information in their opinion statement. After covering the more prominent points in their argument, the court ended by stating that a policy must be neutral in all aspects or be a violation of the Establishment Clause. However, this 11 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, dissenting opinion <
5 Embury 5 rule had never been used before. Neutrality had only been an observed issue in freedom of speech cases concerning strict scrutiny. To make a new rule, the rule should be debated explicitly and entirely before being used as such. 12 Refutation of the majority s arguments is not the end of the story. In addition, the ruling for Santa Fe v. Doe violates other constitutional rights, precedents set by previous cases, and the purpose of the Establishment clause. Before providing their counterarguments, the dissent referenced the tone that the court held while discussing the case. The character and attitude was blatantly against and hostile to any public forms of religion. 13 The Establishment Clause was originally made to create an outlook of peace and acceptance between almost all religious practices 14 ( almost all is used here as some practices, such as the custom of sacrificing people, may break laws that apply to everyone.) This air of aggression, the dissent stated, was in contradiction of the sole purpose of the Establishment Clause. 15 In spite of what the majority stated, Santa Fe passes applicable tests made by the Supreme Court as a result of other cases. Following the Lemon Test founded in the case Lemon v. Kurtzman, the phrases solemnize the event and promote good sportsmanship, 16 along with the rest of the district s policy, can first and foremost easily be interpreted as having a secular purpose. 17 For example, before some major and minor league sports games, the national anthem is solemnly sung to remind players and the audience of traditions and why they should behave well. Religious practices were not mentioned in the district s policy. Furthermore, there was no 12 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion 13 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Chanice, "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron., 144
6 Embury 6 advancement or holding back of a religion, as students would have known that the election decision was made by other students and not for religious purposes. 18 Finally, there was no excessive government involvement as the district had a hands off approach to the election and elected student. 19 The case also passes the Endorsement Test, which was founded in the case Lynch v. Donelly. The policy was unrelated to the government for the same reasons argued against the majority concerning this issue, and does not help one religion over the other since it contained no religious words. To support their judgments, the majority brought the case Lee v. Weisman, in which they ruled that a rabbi cannot give a directed prayer at a graduation speech that was overlooked by school faculty. However, since this speech was controlled by the school, it was government speech and does not apply to the private student speech in the Santa Fe case for reasons stated above in refutation of the majority arguments. 20 The decision from Marsh v. Chambers ruled that a chaplain has the right to say a prayer in front of the legislature without violating the Establishment Clause because of embedded tradition. 21 In comparison to the Santa Fe case, one would be hard put to find the difference between this prayer and a student praying at a football game. It seems nearly impossible that such rulings could have been decided as the prayer in the Marsh case was government endorsed, thus contrasting even more with the district s policy. 22 Following the Marsh ruling, it is only logical to assume that a student would be able to say a prayer in front of his fellow students. Ruling otherwise denies precedent and 18 Chanice, "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, dissenting opinion <
7 Embury 7 takes away the student s right to free speech. Each student had the ability to vote as he/she wished, and the selected student could write a speech with no interference from the district. Calling the policy unconstitutional takes away these rights. In addition to the constitutional and historical explanations for why this case was decided wrongly, reasoning also demands to be considered. A student is allowed to say a prayer in the cafeteria in front of his fellows where the school and faculty may hear him. The question of why, then, a student would be disallowed from saying a prayer in front of his school on the school s football field, is raised. Both instances involve prayer while using school property (even if such use may be considered negligible). In the former case, the school s food and cafeteria are used, and in the second, the loudspeaker and field. Logically, if one act is considered constitutional, then the other should also be declared as such. Fundamentally, the court decision could also be seen as a misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause as the Founding Fathers would have believed correct. 23 The Founders wanted a wall of separation between the church and state, but only spoke of this when talking about the federal government. 24 The Bill of Rights was made so that such rules would not apply to individuals to protect them from the state and federal governments. The Establishment Clause, then, was not meant to apply to state administrations. 25 Since the Founders did not intend to apply the First Amendment rights to states at the time, it seems that they supported the then-current relations between church and state. 26 The Northwest Ordinance, in fact, set up land specifically for religious schools. Therefore, following what the Founders most likely would have wanted, states should be allowed to disregard the church and state regulations as they had 23 Chanice, "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., 146
8 Embury 8 been able to in the Founders days. 27 This argument ignores the 14 th Amendment, which incorporates many parts of the Bill of Rights to apply to states, for the purpose of simply considering what the Founding Fathers would have believed to be the right decision in Santa Fe v. Doe. The question goes into deeper matters, such as the interpretation of the Bill of Rights, bigger than, the one at hand with this case. Nonetheless, the argument stands valid as the issue in Santa Fe v. Doe is included within these deeper matters. In spite of the arguments against it, the decision in Santa Fe v. Doe does more than cause controversy over its validity. It sets a precedent for future cases in which the Court can more easily find loopholes in which to take away people s religious rights. The rules and tests that have resulted from this and similar cases create confusion, controversy, and chaos in questioning how the Establishment Clause can and should be interpreted. 28 Such confusion could easily create conflict, as well as loopholes for possible injustices in future cases. The definition of what government endorsement means could be narrowed even more using the decision that praying on a school s football field with their loud speaker was excessive involvement. Constitutionally valid attempts at expressing religion in states or, more specifically, in schools, could be restricted further. Such restrictions may, perhaps, go as far as taking away an individual s right to pray in public. The conflict created could ultimately introduce higher issues with the Free Exercise Clause in addition to the Establishment Clause. Although no evidently applicable examples have shown up in the courts since, these consequences could be brought about without too much difficulty. Because of the precedents that the Santa Fe decision establishes, Americans religious freedom will likely be compromised in days to come. 27 Chanice, "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron., Ibid., 139
9 Embury 9 Bibliography Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, dissenting opinion < Lawrence J. Chanice, "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron. Vol. 75: Iss. 1, Article 7, St. John's Law Review
Chapter 19: Civil Liberties: First Amendment Freedoms Section 2
Chapter 19: Civil Liberties: First Amendment Freedoms Section 2 Objectives 1. Examine why religious liberty is protected in the Bill of Rights. 2. Describe the limits imposed by the Establishment Clause
More informationIn the House of Representatives, U.S.,
H. Res. 132 In the House of Representatives, U.S., March 20, 2003. Whereas on June 26, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Newdow v. United States Congress (292 F.3d 597; 9th Cir. 2002) (Newdow
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
John Doe v. Gossage Doc. 10 CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06CV-070-M UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BOWLING GREEN DIVISION JOHN DOE PLAINTIFF VS. DARREN GOSSAGE, In his official capacity
More informationCRS-2 morning and that the federal and state statutes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 4 The Trial Court Decision. On July 21
Order Code RS21250 Updated July 20, 2006 The Constitutionality of Including the Phrase Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance Summary Henry Cohen Legislative Attorney American Law Division On June 26, 2002,
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL LAW ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE PRAYERS BEFORE TOWN BOARD MEETINGS HELD CONSTITUTIONAL. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct (2014).
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE PRAYERS BEFORE TOWN BOARD MEETINGS HELD CONSTITUTIONAL. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014). TAYLOR PHILLIPS In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the United
More informationUSING AGENCY LAW TO DETERMINE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FREE SPEECH AND ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSES
USING AGENCY LAW TO DETERMINE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FREE SPEECH AND ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSES LUKE MEIER * One of the more perplexing constitutional issues the Supreme Court has recently addressed is the relationship
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 2 ARGUMENT... 3 I. Contrary to the Fourth
i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 2 ARGUMENT... 3 I. Contrary to the Fourth Circuit s Decision, Deliberative Body Invocations May
More informationRESOLUTION NO. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO
VI-B-1 AUGUST 2, 2010 RESOLUTION NO. PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 10-041 A RESOLUTION RELATED TO CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS; CODIFYING ITS POLICY REGARDING INVOCATIONS BEFORE MEETINGS OF THE LAKELAND CITY COMMISSION;
More informationCRS-2 served a secular legislative purpose because the Commandments displays included the following notation: The secular application of the Ten Comma
Order Code RS22223 Updated October 8, 2008 Public Display of the Ten Commandments Summary Cynthia Brougher Legislative Attorney American Law Division In 1980, the Supreme Court held in Stone v. Graham
More informationIs it unconstitutional to display a religious monument, memorial, or other item on public property?
These issue summaries provide an overview of the law as of the date they were written and are for educational purposes only. These summaries may become outdated and may not represent the current state
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-798 In The Supreme Court of the United States MARTIN COUNTY AND MARTIN COUNTY BOARD, Petitioner, v. ANNE DHALIWAL Respondent. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The
More informationFreedom of Expression
Freedom of Expression For each photo Determine if the image of each photo is protected by the first amendment. If yes are there limits? If no, why not? The First Amendment Congress shall make no
More informationSummary of Purpose and Why:
Meeting Date: July 14,2015 REQUESTED COMMISSION ACTION: Agenda Item 30 Consent Ordinance x Resolution Consideration! Discussion Presentation SHORT TITLE A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
More informationChapter 19: Civil Liberties: First Amendment Freedoms Section 1
Chapter 19: Civil Liberties: First Amendment Freedoms Section 1 The Bill of Rights There was no general listing of the rights of the people in the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was ratified in
More informationINTRODUCTION HOW IS THIS TEXTBOOK DIFFERENT FROM TRADITIONAL CASEBOOKS?...VII ABOUT THE AUTHOR...XI SUMMARY OF CONTENTS... XIII
INTRODUCTION HOW IS THIS TEXTBOOK DIFFERENT FROM TRADITIONAL CASEBOOKS?...VII ABOUT THE AUTHOR...XI SUMMARY OF CONTENTS... XIII... XV TABLE OF CASES...XXI I. THE RELIGION CLAUSE(S): OVERVIEW...26 A. Summary...26
More informationTHE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE Post Office Box 7482 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-7482 JOHN W. WHITEHEAD Founder and President TELEPHONE 434 / 978-3888 FACSIMILE 434/ 978 1789 www.rutherford.org Sheriff Donald
More informationTopic 8: Protecting Civil Liberties Section 1- The Unalienable Rights
Topic 8: Protecting Civil Liberties Section 1- The Unalienable Rights Key Terms Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments added to the Constitution, ratified in 1791 civil liberties: freedoms protected
More informationEstablishment of Religion
Establishment of Religion Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... Amendment I Teacher's Companion Lesson (PDF) In recent years the Supreme Court has placed the Establishment
More informationLegislative Prayers and Judicial Sins: How Not to Think About Constitutional Foundings
Legislative Prayers and Judicial Sins: How Not to Think About Constitutional Foundings Jamin Raskin 1 American University Washington College of Law United States Marsh v. Chambers: Using History to Evade
More informationTHE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 1
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
More informationCourt Cases Jason Ballay
Court Cases Jason Ballay 1. Engel V. Vitale, a Jewish man named Steven Engel challenged, New York law that had mandatory prayers with the wording Almighty God in it. He challanged that it went against
More informationCivil Liberties: First Amendment Freedoms
Presentation Pro Civil Liberties: First Amendment Freedoms 2001 by Prentice Hall, Inc. 2 3 4 A Commitment to Freedom The listing of the general rights of the people can be found in the first ten amendments
More informationLET US PRAY?: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STUDENT- LED GRADUATION PRAYER AFTER SANTA FE V. DOE
LET US PRAY?: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STUDENT- LED GRADUATION PRAYER AFTER SANTA FE V. DOE MATTHEW A. BILLS* The proper role of prayer in public schools is a divisive issue that continually challenges
More informationMagruder s American Government
Presentation Pro Magruder s American Government C H A P T E R 19 Civil Liberties: First Amendment Freedoms 2001 by Prentice Hall, Inc. C H A P T E R 19 Civil Liberties: First Amendment Freedoms SECTION
More informationIntroduction to Religion and the State
William & Mary Law Review Volume 27 Issue 5 Article 2 Introduction to Religion and the State Gene R. Nichol Repository Citation Gene R. Nichol, Introduction to Religion and the State, 27 Wm. & Mary L.
More informationChapter 2. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Chapter 2 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Background The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was entrenched (safeguarded) in the Canadian Constitution on April 17, 1982. This means that
More informationCivil Liberties and Public Policy. Edwards Chapter 04
Civil Liberties and Public Policy Edwards Chapter 04 1 Introduction Civil liberties are individual legal and constitutional protections against the government. Issues about civil liberties are subtle and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION ACLU-TN, et al. ) ) v. ) NO. 3-11-0408 ) JUDGE CAMPBELL THE SUMNER COUNTY BOARD OF ) EDUCATION, et al. ) ORDER
More informationLandmark Case SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE CHARTER VRIEND v. ALBERTA
Landmark Case SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE CHARTER VRIEND v. ALBERTA Prepared for the Ontario Justice Education Network by Counsel for the Department of Justice Canada. Vriend v. Alberta (1998) Delwin Vriend
More informationJune 19, To Whom it May Concern:
(202) 466-3234 (phone) (202) 466-2587 (fax) info@au.org 1301 K Street, NW Suite 850, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 June 19, 2012 Attn: CMS-9968-ANPRM Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department
More informationCase 1:12-cv Document 1 Filed 04/03/12 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1
Case 1:12-cv-00158 Document 1 Filed 04/03/12 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION N.M. a minor, by and through his next friend,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 99-62 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, vs. JANE DOE, individually and as next friend for her minor children Jane and John Doe, Minor Children;
More informationCase 3:15-cv MDH Document 1 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION JANE DOE, individually and as mother and putative next friend of DOECHILD I and DOECHILD II, Joplin, Jasper
More informationUNIT 5: JUDICIAL BRANCH, CIVIL LIBERTIES & CIVIL. Miss DeLong Exam Review RIGHTS
UNIT 5: JUDICIAL BRANCH, CIVIL LIBERTIES & CIVIL Miss DeLong Exam Review RIGHTS TERMS TO KNOW Original Jurisdiction the jurisdiction of a court to hear a trial first Appellate Jurisdiction the jurisdiction
More informationCivil Liberties. Chapter 4
Civil Liberties Chapter 4 The Bill of Rights Debate over necessity at Constitutional Convention. Guarantees specific rights and liberties. Ninth Amendment states other rights exist. Tenth Amendment reserves
More informationSanta Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron
St. John's Law Review Volume 75 Issue 1 Volume 75, Winter 2001, Number 1 Article 7 March 2012 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron Lawrence
More informationAccording to David Barton, in his book Original Intent
JAMES MADISON S DETACHED MEMORANDA 337 The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of a devout officer, might be of
More informationChapter 15 CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS
Chapter 15 CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS Chapter 15 Vocabulary 1. Censorship 2. Commercial Speech 3. Defamation 4. Establishment Clause 5. Fighting Words 6. Free Exercise Clause 7. Libel 8. Obscenity 9. Prior
More informationOral arguments in the case are available on the Internet at:
WALLACE V. JAFFREE 72 U.S. 38 (1985) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html Oral arguments in the case are available on the Internet at: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/frontpage Vote: 6 (Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall,
More informationSchool. Law. Quarterly
No. 3&4 TM IN THIS ISSUE Page 2 Page 18 Page 33 Page 36 Santa Fe Independent District v Doe, The "Student Speech is not Public Speech" Loophole has been Closed Attendance Policies: Is the use of Academic
More informationTHE CONSTITUTION IN THE CLASSROOM
THE CONSTITUTION IN THE CLASSROOM TEACHING MODULE: Tinker and the First Amendment Description: Objectives: This unit was created to recognize the 40 th anniversary of the Supreme Court s decision in Tinker
More informationC-1 of 1. Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc.
C-1 of 1 Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc. Eleventh Circuit No. 17-12802-K CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Counsel
More informationSeptember 19, Constitutionality of See You at the Pole and student promotion
RE: Constitutionality of See You at the Pole and student promotion Dear Educator, Parent or Student: The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth
More informationRawls s Theory of Public Reason in First Amendment Cases of the Rehnquist Court
John Rawls s theory of public reason is clearly reflected in the opinions and logic of the United States Supreme Court, especially when arbitrating the clash between church and state in Rehnquist-era First
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
La 0 05/16 To: The Chief Justice Justice Brennan Justice White Justice Marshall Justice Blackmun Justice Rehnquist Justice Stevens Justice O'Connor From: Justice Powell Circulated: Recirculated: 2nd DRAFT
More informationTOWN OF GREECE, Petitioner, v. SUSAN GALLOWAY AND LINDA STEPHENS, Respondents.
No. 12-696 In The Supreme Court of the United States TOWN OF GREECE, Petitioner, v. SUSAN GALLOWAY AND LINDA STEPHENS, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
More informationCivil Liberties. Wilson chapter 18 Klein Oak High School
Civil Liberties Wilson chapter 18 Klein Oak High School The politics of civil liberties The objectives of the Framers Limited federal powers Constitution: a list of do s, not a list of do nots Bill of
More informationNine of the 13 states had to approve the Constitution in. order for it to be the law of the land. This happened on June 21,
Task 1: Read Nine of the 13 states had to approve the Constitution in order for it to be the law of the land. This happened on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire ratified it. The government of the United
More informationThe Lemon Test Rears Its Ugly Head Again: Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District
University of Richmond Law Review Volume 27 Issue 5 Article 7 1993 The Lemon Test Rears Its Ugly Head Again: Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District Wirt P. Marks IV University of Richmond
More informationJuly 12, 2013 VIA FAX & U.S. MAIL
ALNCE DEF.\DNG FREEDOM FOR FAITH FOR JU July 12, 2013 VIA FAX & U.S. MAIL Ms. Ingrid Day, President (on behalf of the Board of Education) Mr. Robert Glass, Superintendent Bloomfield Hills Schools Booth
More informationUnit 6A STUDY GUIDE Civil Liberties
Unit 6A STUDY GUIDE Civil Liberties 1. Make sure you can differentiate between civil liberties and civil rights. Civil Liberties - Example - Civil Rights - Example - 2. What was the purpose of the Bill
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION CARL W. HEWITT and PATSY HEWITT ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. ) CITY OF COOKEVILLE, TENNESSEE, ) ) Defendant.
More informationLandmark Supreme Court Cases Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Landmark Supreme Court Cases Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) The 1969 landmark case of Tinker v. Des Moines affirmed the First Amendment rights of students in school. The Court held that a school district
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 586 U. S. (2019) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JOSEPH A. KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
More informationNo. A-623 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. REV. DR. MICHAEL NEWDOW, Movant. HON. GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., Respondents.
No. A-623 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES REV. DR. MICHAEL NEWDOW, Movant -vs- HON. GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., Respondents. On Application for Injunction Pending Appeal Motion for Leave to File
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case Case 1:09-cv-05815-RBK-JS 1:33-av-00001 Document Document 3579 1 Filed Filed 11/13/09 Page Page 1 of 1 of 26 26 Michael W. Kiernan, Esquire (MK-6567) Attorney of Record KIERNAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC One
More information2018 Visiting Day. Law School 101 Room 1E, 1 st Floor Gambrell Hall. Robert A. Schapiro Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law
Law School 101 Room 1E, 1 st Floor Gambrell Hall Robert A. Schapiro Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law Robert Schapiro has been a member of faculty since 1995. He served as dean of Emory Law from 2012-2017.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationModel Courts of Justice 2014 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION HANDBOOK
Model Courts of Justice 2014 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION HANDBOOK www.modelcj.org 7-9 February 2014 MODEL COURT OF JUSTICE 2014 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE-CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION
More informationOffice of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Home Search Download Classification Codification About
Page 1 of 8 Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Home Search Download Classification Codification About Go to 1st query term(s) -CITE- 4 USC Sec. 4 01/02/2006 -EXPCITE- TITLE
More informationOctober 15, By & U.S. Mail
(202) 466-3234 (202) 898-0955 (fax) www.au.org 1301 K Street, NW Suite 850, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 October 15, 2014 By Email & U.S. Mail Florida Department of Management Services Office of the
More informationTeenPact Four Day State Class: First Time Student Pre-Class Homework (ages 13-19)
TeenPact Four Day State Class: First Time Student Pre-Class Homework (ages 13-19) Please bring two copies of your completed homework: one to turn in and one to reference throughout the week. Bring a third
More informationS17A0086. MAJOR v. THE STATE. We granted this interlocutory appeal to address whether the former 1
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 15, 2017 S17A0086. MAJOR v. THE STATE. HUNSTEIN, Justice. We granted this interlocutory appeal to address whether the former 1 version of OCGA 16-11-37 (a),
More informationCandidate Evaluation. Candidate Evaluation. Name: Name:
How do voters decide between candidates on election day? There are many different things that people consider when voting; some seem silly and some make sense. Check the things YOU would do or want to
More informationPublic Display of the Ten Commandments and Other Religious Symbols
Public Display of the Ten Commandments and Other Religious Symbols Cynthia Brougher Legislative Attorney February 2, 2011 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More information"[T]his Court should not legislate for Congress." Justice REHNQUIST. Bob Jones University v. United States
"[T]he Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education... [that] substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners'
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SCOTT F. FETTEROLF AND THERESA ) E. FETTEROLF, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. ) BOROUGH OF SEWICKLEY HEIGHTS, ) ) Defendant.
More informationTHOSE DANGEROUS STUDENT PRAYERS
OFF-PRINT COPY OF ARTICLE. COPYRIGHT 2001 BY KELLY J. COGHLAN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 10/21/01 THOSE DANGEROUS STUDENT PRAYERS KELLY J. COGHLAN * I. Introduction... II. Historical Background... A. The First
More informationLaura Brown Chisolm. Prepared for National Center on Philanthropy and the Law Conference Political Activities: Nonprofit Speech October 29-30, 1998
A BRIEF AND SELECTIVE SURVEY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK RELEVANT TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS Laura Brown Chisolm Prepared for National Center on Philanthropy
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., et al.,
No. 10-1973 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., et al., v. BARACK OBAMA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, Defendants-Appellants. ON APPEAL
More informationNO In The Supreme Court of the United States. KEN L. SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Petitioners, FRANK BUONO, Respondent.
NO. 08-472 In The Supreme Court of the United States KEN L. SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Petitioners, v. FRANK BUONO, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationThe Law of Church and State: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Since 2002
Order Code RL34223 The Law of Church and State: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Since 2002 October 30, 2007 Cynthia M. Brougher Legislative Attorney American Law Division The Law of Church and State: U.S.
More informationSeparation of Church and State: New Directions by the New Supreme Court
Berkeley Law Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1992 Separation of Church and State: New Directions by the New Supreme Court Jesse H. Choper Berkeley Law Follow this and additional
More informationJack Howe High School Invitational at Cal State Long Beach September 22 September 23, 2018 Student Congress Information Packet
Jack Howe High School Invitational at Cal State Long Beach September 22 September 23, 2018 Student Congress Information Packet For Contestants, Judges, and Coaches Tentative Schedule Saturday, September
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-000-DGC Document Filed //0 Page of JWB WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 0 William Lamb, vs. Joseph Arpaio, Plaintiff, Defendant. No. CV 0-00-PHX-DGC (DKD ORDER
More informationCandidate Evaluation. Candidate Evaluation. Name: Name:
How do voters decide between candidates on election day? There are many different things that people consider when voting; some seem silly and some make sense. Check the things YOU would do or want to
More informationTennessee School Law Quarterly
Tennessee School Law Quarterly Fall 2015 A TSBA Publication for School Board Attorneys, Board Members, and Administration Table of Contents Pages 1-2 Pages 3-4 Page 5-6 Page 7 Volume 15, Issue 3 Leonard
More informationCase 1:10-cv Document 11 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:10-cv-00583 Document 11 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM J. KELLY, v. Plaintiff, JESSE WHITE, in his capacity as Illinois
More informationSection One. A) The Leviathan B) Two Treatises of Government C) Spirit of the Laws D) The Social Contract
Government Exam Study Guide You will need to be prepared to answer/discuss any of these questions on the exam in various formats. We will complete this study guide in class and review it. Section One 1)
More informationRIGHTS GUARANTEED IN ORIGINAL TEXT CIVIL LIBERTIES VERSUS CIVIL RIGHTS
CIVIL LIBERTIES VERSUS CIVIL RIGHTS Both protected by the U.S. and state constitutions, but are subtly different: Civil liberties are limitations on government interference in personal freedoms. Civil
More informationJudicial Decision-making and the First Amendment
Judicial Decision-making and the First Amendment This activity will introduce students to the First Amendment through the case study method. Students will define speech and explore case precedent in the
More informationELON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW BILLINGS, EXUM & FRYE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION SPRING 2012 PROBLEM
ELON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW BILLINGS, EXUM & FRYE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION SPRING 2012 PROBLEM No. 12-218 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES, INC., HOWARD
More informationRFRA Is Not Needed: New York Land Use Regulations Accommodate Religious Use
Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 7-23-1997 RFRA Is Not Needed: New York Land Use Regulations Accommodate Religious Use John R. Nolon Elisabeth Haub School
More informationAMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY (ACS) SIXTH AMENDMENT LESSON PLAN RIGHT TO COUNSEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY (ACS) SIXTH AMENDMENT LESSON PLAN RIGHT TO COUNSEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Description: This unit was created to introduce students to the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment.
More informationMarch 15, 2018 THE DISHONESTY OF THE FFRF LETTER
Josh Brown, Esq. Legal Counsel & Director of Policy (614) 284-4394 joshbrown@ccv.org March 15, 2018 TO: Mayor Lydia Mahalik City of Findlay 318 Dorney Plz. Findlay, OH 45840-3346 RE: Support for Mayor
More informationMay 21, The Honorable Orrin Hatch 104 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC Dear Senator Hatch,
May 21, 2018 The Honorable Orrin Hatch 104 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20005 Dear Senator Hatch, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Free Right to Expression in Education
More informationThe North Carolina Constitutional Convention of 1835 Overview Grade North Carolina Essential Standards Essential Questions Materials Duration
The North Carolina Constitutional Convention of 1835 Overview Students will explore the reasons North Carolina Constitution of 1776 needed reform, noting the changes to the NC Constitution that were made
More informationYALE UNIVERSITY SURVEY OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS SURVEY C
YALE UNIVERSITY SURVEY OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS SURVEY C 2007-08 We are interested in high school students interest in politics and government. This is not a quiz and we do not expect you to know all of
More informationAT THE SCHOOLHOUSE GATE
i AT THE SCHOOLHOUSE GATE STUDENT RIGHTS CASES Edited by TONI McCLORY August 2007 ii 2007 Toni McClory iii CONTENTS Preface v 1 Religion: The Establishment Clause 1 Lee v. Weisman 2 Santa Fe Independent
More informationA FIXTURE ON A CHANGING COURT: JUSTICE STEVENS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
Copyright 2012 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 106, No. 2 A FIXTURE ON A CHANGING COURT: JUSTICE STEVENS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA MICHAEL SALMAN in Custody at the Maricopa County Jail, PETITIONER, v. JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff of Maricopa County, in his official capacity, Case No. Prisoner No. P884174
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION NEW GENERATION CHRISTIAN ) CHURCH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. ) ROCKDALE COUNTY, GEORGIA, ) JURY DEMANDED
More informationConstitution Day September 17
Constitution Day September 17 The Constitution Pages 61-71 How many articles are there? What are each of the first THREE articles about? ( What( it Means boxes) Based on their length, which seems most
More informationWHEN THE EXCEPTION BECOMES THE RULE: MARSH AND SECTARIAN LEGISLATIVE PRAYER POST-SUMMUM
University of Cincinnati Law Review Volume 79 Issue 3 Article 3 10-17-2011 WHEN THE EXCEPTION BECOMES THE RULE: MARSH AND SECTARIAN LEGISLATIVE PRAYER POST-SUMMUM Scott Gaylord Follow this and additional
More informationREGARDING HISTORY AS A JUDICIAL DUTY
REGARDING HISTORY AS A JUDICIAL DUTY HARRY F. TEPKER * Judge Easterbrook s lecture, our replies, and the ongoing debate about methodology in legal interpretation are testaments to the fact that we all
More informationSTAAR OBJECTIVE: 3. Government and Citizenship
STAAR OBJECTIVE: 3 Government and Citizenship 1. What is representative government? A. Government that represents the interests of the king. B. Government in which elected officials represent the interest
More informationCase 2:18-at Document 1 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 12
Case :-at-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Laurance Lee, State Bar No. 0 Elise Stokes, State Bar No. Sarah Ropelato, State Bar No. th Street Sacramento, CA Telephone:
More informationSuing Alma Mater. Olivas, Michael A. Published by Johns Hopkins University Press. For additional information about this book
Suing Alma Mater Olivas, Michael A. Published by Johns Hopkins University Press Olivas, A.. Suing Alma Mater: Higher Education and the Courts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013. Project MUSE.,
More informationREPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PLAINTIFFS TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC. and TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS LANDFILL, INC.
Case 1:11-cv-01070-LY Document 52 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC. and TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS LANDFILL, INC.,
More information