DOCSLIB.ORG

1St Amendment U.S. Constitution--Religion and Expression

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1St Amendment U.S. Constitution--Religion and Expression FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION AND EXPRESSION CONTENTS Page Religion ....................................................................................................................................... 969 An Overview ........................................................................................................................ 969 Scholarly Commentary ................................................................................................ 970 Court Tests Applied to Legislation Affecting Religion ............................................. 972 Government Neutrality in Religious Disputes .......................................................... 974 Establishment of Religion .................................................................................................. 977 Financial Assistance to Church-Related Institutions ............................................... 977 Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Released Time ....... 991 Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Prayers and Bible Reading ..................................................................................................................... 993 Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Curriculum Re- striction ..................................................................................................................... 996 Access of Religious Groups to School Property ......................................................... 997 Tax Exemptions of Religious Property ...................................................................... 997 Exemption of Religious Organizations from Generally Applicable Laws ............... 999 Sunday Closing Laws .................................................................................................. 999 Conscientious Objection .............................................................................................. 1000 Regulation of Religious Solicitation ........................................................................... 1001 Religion in Governmental Observances ..................................................................... 1002 Miscellaneous ............................................................................................................... 1004 Free Exercise of Religion ................................................................................................... 1005 The Belief-Conduct Distinction .................................................................................. 1007 The Mormon Cases ...................................................................................................... 1009 The Jehovah's Witnesses Cases ................................................................................. 1010 Free Exercise Exemption from General Governmental Requirements ................... 1011 Religious Test Oaths ................................................................................................... 1019 Religious Disqualification ........................................................................................... 1019 Freedom of ExpressionÐSpeech and Press ............................................................................. 1020 Adoption and Common Law Background ......................................................................... 1020 Freedom of Expression: The Philosophical Basis ............................................................. 1025 Freedom of Expression: Is There a Difference Between Speech and Press ................... 1026 The Doctrine of Prior Restraint ......................................................................................... 1029 Injunctions and the Press in Fair Trial Cases .......................................................... 1031 Obscenity and Prior Restraint ................................................................................... 1033 Subsequent Punishment: Clear and Present Danger and Other Tests ......................... 1034 Clear and Present Danger .......................................................................................... 1036 The Adoption of Clear and Present Danger .............................................................. 1038 Contempt of Court and Clear and Present Danger .................................................. 1040 Clear and Present Danger Revised: Dennis .............................................................. 1042 Balancing ..................................................................................................................... 1044 The ``Absolutist'' View of the First Amendment, with a Note on ``Preferred Posi- tion'' ........................................................................................................................... 1048 Of Other Tests and Standards: Vagueness, Overbreadth, Least Restrictive Means, and Others .................................................................................................. 1050 965 966 Freedom of ExpressionÐSpeech and PressÐContinued Subsequent Punishment: Clear and Present Danger and Other TestsÐContinued Is There a Present Test? ............................................................................................. 1051 Freedom of Belief ................................................................................................................ 1053 Flag Salute Cases ........................................................................................................ 1053 Imposition of Consequences for Holding Certain Beliefs ......................................... 1054 Right of Association ............................................................................................................ 1056 Political Association .................................................................................................... 1061 Conflict Between Organization and Members .......................................................... 1064 Maintenance of National Security and the First Amendment ....................................... 1066 Punishment of Advocacy ............................................................................................. 1067 Compelled Registration of Communist Party ........................................................... 1069 Punishment for Membership in an Organization Which Engages in Proscribed Advocacy ................................................................................................................... 1070 Disabilities Attaching to Membership in Proscribed Organizations ....................... 1071 Employment Restrictions and Loyalty Oaths ........................................................... 1073 Legislative Investigations and the First Amendment .............................................. 1078 Interference With War Effort ..................................................................................... 1079 Suppression of Communist Propaganda in the Mails .............................................. 1080 Exclusion of Certain Aliens as a First Amendment Problem .................................. 1080 Particular Government Regulations Which Restrict Expression ................................... 1081 Government as Employer: Political Activities .......................................................... 1081 Government as Employer: Free Expression Generally ............................................ 1084 Government as Educator ............................................................................................ 1090 Government as Regulator of the Electoral Process: Elections ................................. 1094 Government as Regulator of the Electoral Process: Lobbying ................................. 1101 Government as Regulator of Labor Relations ........................................................... 1102 Government as Investigator: Journalist's Privilege ................................................. 1102 Government and the Conduct of Trials ..................................................................... 1105 Government as Administrator of Prisons .................................................................. 1108 Government and Power of the Purse ......................................................................... 1112 Governmental Regulation of Communications Industries .............................................. 1113 Commercial Speech ..................................................................................................... 1113 Taxation ....................................................................................................................... 1119 Labor Relations ........................................................................................................... 1121 Antitrust Laws ............................................................................................................ 1122 Radio and Television ................................................................................................... 1123 Governmentally Compelled Right of Reply to Newspapers ..................................... 1127 Government Restraint of Content of Expression ............................................................. 1127 Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel ........................................................................ 1131 Fighting Words and Other Threats to the Peace ...................................................... 1133 Group Libel, Hate Speech ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constitutional Law Mnemonics
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MNEMONICS 1) PEG a violation of the Establishment Clause: P – The state statute or activity must have a primarily secular PURPOSE as opposed to the purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion E – The law’s primary or inevitable EFFECT must neither disapprove of nor endorse religion AND G – The law or conduct can’t foster excessive GOVERNMENTAL religious entanglement 2) A content-neutral regulation must be a reasonable SON of the First Amendment: S – The restriction must be justified by a SIGNIFICANT governmental interest O – The regulation must leave OPEN ample alternative channels of communication AND N – The regulation must be NARROWLY tailored to further the government’s goal, but doesn’t have to be least restrictive means of doing so 3) All commercial speech restrictions with STAN are valid: S – Government must have a SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST to restrict the speech T – Advertisements must be TRUTHFUL and concern lawful products and services A – Governmental restrictions must directly and materially ADVANCE the government’s “substantial interest” in enacting the law (and there must be “reasonable fit” between the state’s goal and means used to achieve that goal) N – The regulation must be NARROWLY-DRAWN and must not be more extensive than necessary to achieve the government’s substantial interest 4) The statute’s primary purpose must be a secular (non-religious) purpose, as opposed to a DOE purpose of Disapproving Or Endorsing religion 5) SLAP POP’S PAW is simply obscene, and is not constitutionally protected: SLAP –
    [Show full text]
  • World War I Concept Learning Outline Objectives
    AP European History: Period 4.1 Teacher’s Edition World War I Concept Learning Outline Objectives I. Long-term causes of World War I 4.1.I.A INT-9 A. Rival alliances: Triple Alliance vs. Triple Entente SP-6/17/18 1. 1871: The balance of power of Europe was upset by the decisive Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War and the creation of the German Empire. a. Bismarck thereafter feared French revenge and negotiated treaties to isolate France. b. Bismarck also feared Russia, especially after the Congress of Berlin in 1878 when Russia blamed Germany for not gaining territory in the Balkans. 2. In 1879, the Dual Alliance emerged: Germany and Austria a. Bismarck sought to thwart Russian expansion. b. The Dual Alliance was based on German support for Austria in its struggle with Russia over expansion in the Balkans. c. This became a major feature of European diplomacy until the end of World War I. 3. Triple Alliance, 1881: Italy joined Germany and Austria Italy sought support for its imperialistic ambitions in the Mediterranean and Africa. 4. Russian-German Reinsurance Treaty, 1887 a. It promised the neutrality of both Germany and Russia if either country went to war with another country. b. Kaiser Wilhelm II refused to renew the reinsurance treaty after removing Bismarck in 1890. This can be seen as a huge diplomatic blunder; Russia wanted to renew it but now had no assurances it was safe from a German invasion. France courted Russia; the two became allies. Germany, now out of necessity, developed closer ties to Austria.
    [Show full text]
  • The Framers' Constitution: Toward a Theory of Principled Constitutionalism
    The Framers’ Constitution: Toward a Theory of Principled Constitutionalism By Geoffrey R. Stone and William P. Marshall September 2011 All expressions of opinion are those of the author or authors. The American Constitution Society (ACS) takes no position on specific legal or policy initiatives. The Framers’ Constitution: Toward a Theory of Principled Constitutionalism Geoffrey R. Stone* & William P. Marshall** For the past forty years, political conservatives have effectively framed the national debate over constitutional interpretation. According to the conservatives’ narrative, their approach to constitutional interpretation adheres to the true meaning of the Constitution and to the Rule of Law, whereas “liberal” jurisprudence is concerned only with achieving specific desired outcomes, without regard to the text, history or meaning of the Constitution. The gains that conservatives have achieved by characterizing the debate in this manner cannot be overstated. Because the public has generally accepted the conservative account, Republican presidents have been much more aggressive than their Democratic counterparts in appointing judges with strongly ideological inclinations, and constitutional doctrine has veered sharply to the right as conservative jurists have become ever bolder in their pursuit of politically conservative results. Meanwhile, at the grassroots level, a new strain of conservative constitutionalism has recently emerged that insists that even such traditional legislative measures as civil rights laws and social welfare programs are unconstitutional, reflecting an even more aggressive conception of conservative judicial ideology. The conservative constitutional narrative is deeply unprincipled and patently wrong, both in its defense of conservative judicial ideology and in its attack on what conservatives deride as a result-oriented “liberal” jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Free Exercise Boundaries of Permissible Accommodation Under the Establishment Clause
    The Free Exercise Boundaries of Permissible Accommodation Under the Establishment Clause Jonathan E. Nuechterlein The free exercise clause1 instructs the government to lift state-imposed burdens on religion where the costs of doing so are reasonable. Thus, ab- sent a "compelling" state interest,2 the government must exempt people from generally applicable requirements that burden their religious obliga- tions.3 By contrast, the establishment clause forbids the government to pass laws for the purpose of advancing religion.4 According to the Supreme Court, the principles underlying these two clauses are mutually inconsistent.5 Justice O'Connor remarks: "It is disin- genuous to look for a purely secular purpose when the manifest objective of a statute is to facilitate the free exercise of religion by lifting a govern- ment-imposed burden."' Many commentators agree that such "accommo- dation" of religion-whether enacted by a legislature or compelled by a court-inevitably reveals a purpose that the establishment clause forbids.' 1. U.S. CONST. amend. I reads in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ..." 2. See, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963). Interests that are "compelling" in the free exercise context often would not be "compelling" in the equal protection context (where virtually no interest is compelling). See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 262-63 (1982) (Stevens, J., concurring) (suggesting that Court applies lower standard in free exercise cases than it professes). Thus, the required state interest is more aptly termed "substantial." 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Exercise and Individualized Exemptions: Herein of Smith, Sherbert, Hogwarts, and Religious Liberty Richard F
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 83 | Issue 4 Article 5 2005 Free Exercise and Individualized Exemptions: Herein of Smith, Sherbert, Hogwarts, and Religious Liberty Richard F. Duncan University of Nebraska College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Richard F. Duncan, Free Exercise and Individualized Exemptions: Herein of Smith, Sherbert, Hogwarts, and Religious Liberty, 83 Neb. L. Rev. (2004) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol83/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Richard F. Duncan* Free Exercise and Individualized Exemptions: Herein of Smith, Sherbert, Hogwarts, and Religious Liberty TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 1179 II. The Transfiguration of Sherbert and Its Progeny ....... 1180 A. The Sherbert Line of Cases ........................ 1180 B. The Transfiguration of Sherbert ................... 1184 C. A Categorical Rule: An Individualized Process for Allocating Governmental Benefits and Burdens Is Not Generally Applicable .......................... 1186 III. Protecting Religious Liberty Under the Categorical R ule .................................................. 1190 A. Some Thoughtful Decisions ........................ 1190 1. The Tenafly Eruv Case ........................ 1190 2. The Case of the Acting Student Who Refused To Curse God ..................................... 1192 3. The Case of the College Freshman Who Wanted To Live Off Campus ........................... 1194 4. The Case of the Native American Holy Man and His Black Bears ............................... 1197 B. The Categorical Rule Applied ...................... 1198 IV. Conclusion ............................................ 1202 © Copyright held by the NEBRASKA LAW REVIEW.
    [Show full text]
  • Guantanamo, Boumediene, and Jurisdiction-Stripping: the Mpei Rial President Meets the Imperial Court" (2009)
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2009 Guantanamo, Boumediene, and Jurisdiction- Stripping: The mpI erial President Meets the Imperial Court Martin J. Katz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Katz, Martin J., "Guantanamo, Boumediene, and Jurisdiction-Stripping: The mpeI rial President Meets the Imperial Court" (2009). Constitutional Commentary. 699. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/699 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article GUANTANAMO, BOUMEDIENE, AND JURISDICTION-STRIPPING: THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT MEETS THE IMPERIAL COURT Martin J. Katz* INTRODUCTION In Boumediene v. Bush,1 the Supreme Court struck down a major pillar of President Bush's war on terror: the indefinite de­ tention of terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Court held that even non-citizen prisoners held by the United States government on foreign soil could challenge their confinement by seeking a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, and that the procedures the government had provided for such challenges were not an adequate substitute for the writ." As a habeas corpus case, Boumediene may well be revolu­ tionary.3 However, Boumediene is more than merely a habeas * Interim Dean and Associate Professor of Law. University of Denver College of Law; Yale Law School. J.D. 1991: Harvard College. A.B. 1987. Thanks to Alan Chen.
    [Show full text]
  • US Constitution First Amendment: an Overview
    US Constitution first amendment: an overview The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Religion and the Courts 1790-1947 Leslie C. Griffin When the Framers
    Religion and the Courts 1790-1947 Leslie C. Griffin* When the Framers drafted the United States Constitution in 1787, the only mention of religion was the remarkable text of Article VI, which states “no Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” That groundbreaking language marked a shift from prior practice in Europe and the states. At the time of the Constitution’s drafting, most states had religious qualifications for government officials, following the pattern in Britain, where the monarch was required to be a member of the Church of England. In Europe the guiding principle was cuius regio, eius religio: the religion of the people is determined by the religion of the ruler. Many of the Framers, especially James Madison, believed that the new Constitution protected liberty of conscience by creating a government of enumerated and separate powers that gave Congress no authority over religion. During the ratification process, however, constitutional critics demanded greater protection of individuals from the power of the government. In order to secure the Constitution’s ratification, the new Congress drafted a Bill of Rights that protected religious freedom in the following language: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Upon ratification by the states in 1791, the language about religion became the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 The two Religion Clauses of the First Amendment are known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Although Madison suggested that the standard protecting liberty of conscience should apply to state as well as federal governments, the language of the First Amendment—“Congress 1 shall”—applied only to the federal government.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Article
    467 O'NEIL 2/28/2013 3:54 PM HATE SPEECH, FIGHTING WORDS, AND BEYOND—WHY AMERICAN LAW IS UNIQUE Robert M. O‘Neil* During the waning days of the turbulent presidential campaign of 2012, the issue of free speech was bound to emerge. President Barack Obama chose this moment to declare to the United Nations General Assembly his abiding commitment to the uniquely American value of unfettered expression.1 In a diverse society, he reaffirmed, ―efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities.‖2 The catalyst for this declaration was the appearance of ―a crude and disgusting video‖3 caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad which had triggered violent protests in more than twenty nations, mainly in the Middle East.4 President Obama made clear both his disdain for the video and his unswerving faith in the singularly American insistence on free expression.5 Curiously (or some would say paradoxically) the Obama Administration only weeks earlier had actively supported passage of a resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council to create an international standard restricting some anti-religious speech; the Egyptian ambassador to the United Nations had lauded this measure by recognizing that ―‗freedom of expression has been sometimes misused‘ to insult religion.‖6 Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had added her view that speech or protest resulting in the destruction of religious sites was not, she noted, ―fair game.‖7 In a recent and expansive analysis of these contrasting events, * University of Virginia and Association of Governing Boards, Albany Law Review Symposium, September, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. 19-___ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ MARK JANUS, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL., Respondents. _________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit _________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI _________ JEFFREY M. SCHWAB WILLIAM L. MESSENGER LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER Counsel of Record 190 South LaSalle Street AARON B. SOLEM Suite 1500 c/o NATIONAL RIGHT TO Chicago, IL 60603 WORK LEGAL DEFENSE (312) 263-7668 FOUNDATION, INC. 8001 Braddock Road Suite 600 Springfield, VA 22160 (703) 321-8510 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner QUESTION PRESENTED Is there a “good faith defense” to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that shields a defendant from damages liability for de- priving citizens of their constitutional rights if the de- fendant acted under color of a law before it was held unconstitutional? (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Petitioner, a Plaintiff-Appellant in the court below, is Mark Janus. Respondents, Defendants-Appellees in the court be- low, are American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31; Simone McNeil, in her official capacity as the Acting Director of the Illi- nois Department of Central Management Services; and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. Other parties to the original proceedings below who are not Petitioners or Respondents include plaintiffs Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, Brian Trygg, and Ma- rie Quigley, and defendant General Teamsters/Profes- sional & Technical Employees Local Union No. 916. Because no Petitioner is a corporation, a corporate disclosure statement is not required under Supreme Court Rule 29.6.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Self-Expression, and Kant's Public
    Diametros 54 (2017): 118–137 doi: 10.13153/diam.54.2017.1136 FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF SELF-EXPRESSION, AND KANT’S PUBLIC USE OF REASON – Geert Van Eekert – Abstract. This article turns to early modern and Enlightenment advocates of tolerance (Locke, Spi- noza, John Stuart Mill) to discover and lay bare the line of argument that has informed their com- mitment to free speech. This line of argument will subsequently be used to assess the shift from free speech to the contemporary ideal of free self-expression. In order to take this assessment one step further, this article will finally turn to Immanuel Kant’s famous defense of the public use of reason. In the wake of Katerina Deligiorgi’s readings of Kant, it will show that the idea of free speech requires a specific disposition on behalf of speakers and writers that is in danger of being neglected in the contemporary prevailing conception of free speech as freedom of self-expression. Keywords: John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, freedom of speech, free- dom of self-expression, public use of reason, Enlightenment. Contemporary debates about free speech or freedom of speech primarily deal with the question how free speech should be (in the sense of both “How free should speech be?” and “How should free speech be?”), and not (or at least not mainly) with the question why speech should be free.1 Admittedly, there seems to be no reason to urge the latter question: it is rather generally agreed upon today (at least in liberal democratic societies) that freedom of speech should be both es- teemed and categorically defended because it is both a fundamental human right and a key pillar of democracy and of the (scientific) quest for knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Speech Or Hate Speech? a Conversation Regarding State V
    Free Speech or Hate Speech? A Conversation Regarding State v. Liebenguth November 16, 2020 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. CT Bar Association Webinar CT Bar Institute, Inc. CT: 2.0 CLE Credits (1.0 General / 1.0 Ethics) NY:2.0 CLE Credits (1.0 AOP / 1.0 Ethics) No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy of these materials. Readers should check primary sources where appropriate and use the traditional legal research techniques to make sure that the information has not been affected or changed by recent developments. Page 1 of 163 Table of Contents Lawyers’ Principles of Professionalism...................................................................................................................3 Agenda ....................................................................................................................................................................6 Faculty Biographies ................................................................................................................................................7 Hate Crime Laws ..................................................................................................................................................10 State v. Liebenguth ................................................................................................................................................26 State v. Liebenguth 181 Conn.App. 37 ..................................................................................................................49 State v. Baccala .....................................................................................................................................................67
    [Show full text]