MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS - Mr. Bolanos - …



REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES (1878)SummaryThis Supreme Court Case focuses on a case which tested the limits of religious liberty:?Reynolds v. United States(1878). The Court ruled unanimously that a law banning polygamy was constitutional, and did not infringe upon individuals’ First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. (Free Exercise Clause)Reading ActivityGeorge Reynolds was a resident of the Utah territory. His wife was Mary Ann Tuddenham. He was still married to Mary Ann when he married Amelia Jane Schofield. Federal law stated, “Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.” By being married to two women at the same time, Reynolds had clearly broken the law—a fact he did not dispute. But Reynolds was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Reynolds argued that his religion required him to marry multiple women.As part of Reynolds’s legal defenses, he argued that the law was unconstitutional. He asserted that it violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. He believed that his religious duty required him to marry multiple women: the penalty for refusing to practice polygamy was eternal damnation. He was convicted. Eventually his case came before the Supreme Court.The Court upheld his conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court reasoned, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation….Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” In other words, while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice of it. This was in part, the Court held, because marriage was a “most important” feature of social life: “Upon it [marriage] society may be said to be built. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law.”Finally, the Court concluded that people cannot excuse themselves from the law because of their religion. “Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”In 1890, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints officially rejected polygamy and issued a statement dissolving “any marriages forbidden by the law of the land.”Comprehension and Critical Thinking QuestionsWhat law was George Reynolds accused of breaking?Why did Reynolds argue the law was unconstitutional?How did the Supreme Court rule, and what was its reasoning?In his letter to the Danbury Baptists referenced by the Court, President Thomas Jefferson wrote that the law can reach “actions only and not opinions.” What did he mean?The Court reasoned, “Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship…Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent [these practices]?” Do you believe these examples strengthen the Court’s argument? Why or why not?NEAR V. MINNESOTA (1931)SummaryThis Landmark Supreme focuses on the 1931 Supreme Court case?Near v. Minnesota. In this landmark freedom of the press case, the Court struck down a state law allowing prior restraint (government censorship in advance) as unconstitutional. In so ruling, the Court applied the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom to the actions of state governments through the doctrine of incorporation.ActivityAfter its ratification and until the early twentieth century, the First Amendment protected citizens from federal government censorship. State governments, on the other hand, routinely censored newspapers. For example, abolitionist newspapers in the South and pro-slavery newspapers in the North prior to the Civil War faced censorship. Regulation of the press by state governments continued until 1931 when the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement of due process to apply the First Amendment’s protection of press freedom to state governments (the doctrine of incorporation) in the case of?Near v. Minnesota.Minnesota had a law subjecting newspapers to official approval before publication. Publishers had to show “good motives and justifiable ends” for what they were about to print. If they could not, the paper could be censored in advance. Additionally, it was a crime to publish “obscene, lewd, and lascivious” or “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” materials.Jay Near published a “scandal sheet” in 1920’s Minneapolis. This paper was devoted to sensational news and “exposé” reports on corruption. Near regularly criticized elected officials and accused them of dishonesty. He asserted that Jews were “practically ruling” the city, that the chief of police was taking bribes, and that the governor was incompetent. Near was eventually stopped from publishing his newspaper in 1925 on the basis of the Minnesota law.The Court held that prior restraint on publication (censoring newspapers in advance) in Minnesota was “the essence of censorship” and the heart of what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. Even in cases where printed statements could be punished after the fact (libelous statements, for example), neither federal nor state governments could stop the publication of materials in advance. The Court cautioned that prior restraint may be constitutional during wartime: “No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.”In a society with a free press, journalists who have the power to shape public opinion may test citizens’ commitment to the First Amendment. A free press puts the responsibility on the citizen to determine what is accurate, what is worth reading, and what is worth prehension and Critical Thinking QuestionsWhat is a prior restraint?What were the facts of the case in?Near v. Minnesota?(1931)?How did the Supreme Court rule?What trade-offs do we make as a society committed to freedom of the press? Are the tradeoffs worth it? Explain your answer.CANTWELL V. CONNECTICUT?(1940)SummaryWe spotlight the landmark free exercise case?Cantwell v. Connecticut?(1940). In this case, the Court held that the government has no role in determining religious truth. Furthermore, the Court also held that the peaceful expression of beliefs—including religious views that might offend some listeners—is protected by the First Amendment from infringement by the federal government as well as state governments.ActivityJesse Cantwell, walked with two family members along Cassius Street in New Haven, Connecticut. It was a Roman Catholic neighborhood. The Cantwells were Jehovah’s Witnesses, so they believed they had a sacred duty to bring their message to others. They carried religious materials with them, including pamphlets, books, and records. They also had a portable record player, which played an anti-Catholic message called “Enemies.” Jesse Cantwell stopped two Catholic men on the street. The men agreed to listen to the record, but reacted angrily when they heard it. They said they were tempted to hit him and told him to leave. Thereafter, the Cantwells were arrested for solicitation without a permit and for inciting a breach of the peace.The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Cantwell’s convictions. First, the Court found Connecticut’s solicitation permit law unconstitutional. The law required anyone soliciting for charitable or religious purposes to have a permit. Before issuing a permit, the government would decide if the purpose was, “a religious one or is a?bona fide?object of charity or philanthropy” and whether it “conforms to reasonable standards of efficiency and integrity.” Because the local ordinance allowed officials to determine what causes should be considered religious, it violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court recognized “the [First] Amendment embraces two concepts—freedom to believe and freedom to act.” The Court recognized an absolute freedom of belief, placing questions of religious truth outside the Court system.In addition, the Court threw out Cantwell’s arrest for a breach of the peace. Cantwell had a First Amendment right to express his religious message. The Court held, “[Cantwell] had a right peacefully to impart his views to others.” Since there was no evidence that Cantwell personally insulted the men or argued with them, he could not be prosecuted for inciting breach of peace. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion and wrote of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, “Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law … and [they] safeguard the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.”This case is also important because in it holding, the Court incorporated (or applied) the First Amendment’s free exercise to the states. Neither federal nor state governments could unduly infringe on the right to freely exercise religion without a compelling state interest.QuestionsWhat events led up to Jesse Cantwell’s arrest?How did the Supreme Court rule in?Cantwell v. Connecticut?(1940)?What two religious concepts did the Court find were protected by the First Amendment?How did the?Cantwell v. Connecticut?ruling impact state governments?Why do you think this case is considered one of the most important freedom of religion cases in US history?MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS?(1940)SummaryBilly Gobitis, a ten-year-old Pennsylvania public school student, refused to salute the American flag because doing so would have gone against his religious beliefs. Billy argued that his First Amendment rights to free speech and religious exercise meant the government could not force him to participate in the daily ceremony. The Court ruled against him, but three years later reversed itself in a similar case, finding that the First Amendment protected students’ rights to refrain from saluting the flag.ActivityBilly Gobitis had to choose between attending public school and exercising his religion. Billy was a ten-year-old elementary school student in 1935. A Jehovah’s Witness, he believed that saluting the flag is a form of idol worship, and a direct violation of the second commandment in the Bible. When Billy and his sister refused to participate in their public school’s required flag-saluting ceremony, they were expelled. Billy wrote a letter to the school board explaining, “I do not salute the flag because I have promised to do the will of God.” The school board did not change its position.The Gobitis family was physically attacked and their family grocery store was boycotted. This caused great financial strain as the family faced the cost of sending the two children to private school. Their father sued on behalf of the children, saying the district’s policy violated his children’s religious freedom.In 1940, the Supreme Court ruled on Billy’s case,?Minersville School District v. Gobitis. The Court decided 8-1 in favor of the school policy, ruling that the government could require respect for the flag as a key symbol of national unity and a means of preserving national security. The Court held that the Pledge of Allegiance helps “to evoke that unifying element without which there can ultimately be no liberties, civil or religious…Exempting the Gobitis children make others less loyal to the country…. National unity is the basis of national security.” The Court rejected the claim that forcing Billy to say the pledge would violate his right to freely exercise his religion. The Court held that parents, not schools, are children’s primary religious instructors, and that the pledge requirement would not interfere with Billy’s religious upbringing.The lone dissenter, Justice Harlan Stone, wrote a strongly-worded opinion. He argued that forcing students to say the pledge did violate the First Amendment because it abridged freedom of speech and prohibited the free exercise of religion. Stone continued, “[T]he state seeks to coerce these children to express a sentiment which …violates their deepest religious convictions. …The very essence of the liberty…is the freedom of the individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall say, at least where the compulsion is to bear false witness to his religion.”Stone’s dissent became the basis for the Court’s ruling in a case it heard three years later.?West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette?(1943) was another case involving the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In that case, the Supreme Court reversed its decision in Billy’s case. The Court held that the right of free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution means the government cannot force anyone to salute the American flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Forcing people to have similar opinions was doomed to failure, and violated First Amendment principles: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”QuestionsWhy was Billy Gobitis expelled from school?How did Billy explain his actions to the school board?How did the Supreme Court rule in Billy’s case,?Minersville v. Gobitas?(1940)?What is the significance of a case the Supreme Court decided three years later,?West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette?(1943)?Do you agree that national unity is a basis for national security? If so, should the government be able to compel national unity by requiring the Pledge of Allegiance?ENGEL V. VITALE?(1962)SummaryThe saying goes “as long as there are tests, there will be prayer in schools.” And individual students can indeed pray for straight A’s or for other reasons. But the Supreme Court decision in?Engel v. Vitale?(1962) held that official recitation of prayers in public schools violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The ruling is hailed by some as a victory for religious freedom, while criticized by others as striking a blow to the nation’s religious traditions.Activity“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” If a public school student were to say this non-denominational prayer quietly to him or herself, there would be no constitutional conflict. If a group of students were to assemble before school and say this prayer aloud, there would be no constitutional conflict. But what if all public schools in a state began the day with a formal recitation of this prayer? Known as the “Regents Prayer” this invocation was used to open the school day in New York public schools for much of our nation’s history. Students who did not wish to say it could choose to remain silent or stand outside the room, and face no penalty. This practice was challenged in the landmark Supreme Court case?Engel v. Vitale. (1962).The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This was originally added to the Constitution to keep the federal government from establishing a national religion, and to stop it from interfering with establishments of religion in the states. Today, the amendment is often used to keep religion out of government spaces such as public schools, libraries, and courtrooms. Challenges to religion in schools grew in the Twentieth Century for two reasons: The growth of public schools in the twentieth century, combined with the Supreme Court’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply First Amendment limitations to the states. In?Engel v. Vitale,?the Court ruled that for public schools to hold official recitation of prayers violated the Establishment Clause.Justice Hugo Black wrote: “We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents’ prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause…It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.”?Some people wrongly believe this decision outlawed all prayer in public schools. It did not. The ruling did prohibit schools from writing or choosing a specific prayer and requiring all students to say it.QuestionsWhat was the “Regents’ Prayer”?What was the original reason for adding the Establishment Clause to the Constitution?Why did challenges to religion in schools grow during the twentieth century?How did the Supreme Court rule in?Engel v. Vitale?(1962), and why?In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart wrote, “ With all respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an ‘official religion’ is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.”FREEDOM OF SPEECH –?SKOKIE?AND?BRANDENBURGSummaryThis Landmark Supreme Court Case focuses on two cases that tested the limits of the First Amendment, and that demonstrated the United States’ commitment to freedom of speech. In these cases,?National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie?(1977), and?Brandenburg v. Ohio?(1968), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects individuals’ rights to express their views, even if those views are considered extremely offensive by most people.ActivityAmerican writer Noam Chomsky said “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Individuals who express unpopular opinions are protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment prevents majorities from silencing views with which they do not agree—even views that the majority of people find offensive to their very core. Two cases,?Brandenburg v. Ohio?(1969) and?National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie?(1977), help demonstrate the meaning of the First Amendment and the American commitment to freedom of speech.The?Brandenburg v. Ohio?case concerned Ku Klux Klan member Clarence Brandenburg. Brandenburg delivered a speech in Hamilton County, Ohio, where he called for “revengeance” [sic] against Jews and African Americans. He was convicted under two Ohio laws, one of which punished the advocacy of “the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime [or] violence…as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.” He was sentenced to prison and fined $1,000. Brandenburg argued that the Ohio law violated the First Amendment, which states in part, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” His case eventually went to the Supreme Court. The Court unanimously agreed with Brandenburg and struck down the Ohio law as unconstitutional. Interpreting the First Amendment, the Court reasoned that government cannot punish speech unless it meets two criteria: first, if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and second, if it is “likely to incite or produce such action.”The 1978 Skokie case involved neo-Nazis who applied for a permit to march in the heavily Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois. Two weeks later, the Skokie Board of Commissioners passed an ordinance requiring marchers to post a $350,000 insurance bond. The Board later passed an ordinance banning distribution of printed materials that promote hatred of groups of people, or marching in military style uniforms. The Nazi group argued that these three laws were unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Nazi Party could not be prohibited from marching peacefully because of the content of their prehension and Critical Thinking QuestionsWhat were the facts of the case in?Brandenburg v. Ohio?(1968) and?National Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie?(1977)?Compare and contrast the arguments, laws, and outcomes in each of the cases.Why does the First Amendment protect even the most offensive types of speech?The phrase “politics is persuasion” is attributed to the ancient philosopher Aristotle. What did he mean? What is the function of free speech in a free society?ALLEGHENY COUNTY V. ACLU?(1989)SummaryTwenty-five years ago, the Court decided the First Amendment case of?Allegheny County v. ACLU?(1989), holding (5-4) that a crèche with the words “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” (Glory to God in the highest) displayed on the grand staircase of the county courthouse violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In the same case, six justices held that a joint Menorah-Christmas tree display outside the city-county building did not violate the Establishment Clause. This Landmark Supreme Court Case encourages students to analyze the facts and reasoning in this decision.ActivityThe city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania had several traditional holiday displays around the winter season. A crèche (nativity scene) donated to the city by a Roman Catholic group was placed on the staircase of the County Courthouse, the county’s seat of government. Above the nativity was an angel with a banner that read?Gloria in Excelsis Deo?(Glory to God in the highest).” Another display outside another government building and about a block from the County Courthouse included a Menorah and a Christmas tree.The ACLU, together with seven residents of Pittsburgh, filed suit against the city challenging the constitutionality of the displays. They argued that the displays violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”The Establishment Clause was intended to prevent the government from establishing a national church, or from interfering in the affairs of state churches. Over time, the Supreme Court has established various tests when government practices are challenged. One is called the Endorsement Test: the Supreme Court asks if a practice endorses religion. If the answer is yes, then the Supreme Court holds that the practice violates the Establishment Clause.The Court agreed that the crèche was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. The ruling asserted, “The government’s use of religious symbolism is unconstitutional if it has the effect of endorsing religious beliefs, and the effect of the government’s use of religious symbolism depends upon its context.” In this case, the Court reasoned, the crèche stood alone and contained an unmistakable religious message. “The government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, but, under the First Amendment, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus.”On the other hand, the Court held that the Menorah and Christmas tree display did not violate the Establishment Clause. The opinion was careful to note that the display was not constitutional simply because it included two religions. Rather, it was constitutional because it celebrated the two holidays using what the Court viewed as secular symbols. This made the display, in the Court’s view, a “recognition” of the two holidays, rather than an “endorsement” of prehension and Critical Thinking QuestionsWhat holiday decorations were challenged in the case of?Allegheny County v. ACLU?(1989)?How did the Supreme Court rule?After looking at the pictures of the two displays, do you agree with the Court’s ruling? What is your constitutional reasoning?Should the judicial system create “tests” to determine whether government practices violate the First Amendment or should it use the language of the Constitution? Explain.In his dissenting opinion, Justice Kennedy accused the majority in this case of having a “latent hostility” towards religion. How would you respond to that assertion?MORSE V. FREDERICK?(2007)SummaryThe decision in one of the most important student speech cases to reach the Court in decades came at the end of last term. The case,?Morse v. Frederick, concerned the rights of a public school student to unfurl a banner reading “Bong hits 4 Jesus” at a school-sponsored event held off school grounds. We begin this school year with this landmark case on the rights of public school students.ActivityJoseph Frederick knew the Olympic Torch relay runner was close and his anticipation grew stronger. Officials at his Juneau, Alaska school had decided that students should be able to see the Olympic relay pass on its way to the games in Salt Lake City, so a mini-field trip had been organized. Students were taken outside, across the street from the school. They were surrounded by television cameras and reporters, all hoping to the capture the exciting event on film. Few people even noticed Frederick was carrying a banner.As the Olympic relay approached and cameras rolled, Frederick and some fellow students unfurled the 14-foot banner. It read, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” (This was a slang reference to smoking marijuana.) The banner did not create a disturbance, but Principal Deborah Morse told the students to take it down. When Frederick refused, Morse took the banner away and later suspended Frederick for ten days. She cited the school’s policy against materials promoting illegal drugs.Frederick denied that the banner promoted drug use. He explained, “the words were just nonsense meant to attract television cameras.” He believed the First Amendment protected his right to display this banner at a public school event, and brought suit against Principal Morse. The Circuit Court agreed with Frederick and ruled that because he had been punished for the content of his speech (rather than any disturbance it caused), the school’s actions were unconstitutional. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court.The Court decided against Frederick and ruled 5-4 that public school officials can censor student speech that could be reasonably understood to promote illegal drugs. “The concern here is not that Frederick’s speech was offensive, but that it was reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.” The Court explained that the free speech rights of students had to be considered in light of the “special characteristics” of the school environment, and that it was an important responsibility of schools to deter drug use among young prehension and Critical Thinking QuestionsWhy was Joseph Frederick suspended?How did the school justify his punishment?How did the Supreme Court rule?In his dissent, Justice Stevens argued that the message was “nonsense” and did not promote drug use. “Most students…do not shed their brains at the schoolhouse gate… The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade [a student] to change his or her behavior is most implausible.” Do you believe the banner could be reasonably understood to promote drug use?Do you believe the First Amendment protected Frederick’s actions? Why or why not? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download