DOCSLIB.ORG

Conduct and Belief in the Free Exercise Clause: Developments and Deviations in Lyng V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conduct and Belief in the Free Exercise Clause: Developments and Deviations in Lyng V Cornell Law Review Volume 76 Article 5 Issue 1 November 1990 Conduct and Belief in the Free Exercise Clause: Developments and Deviations in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association J. Brett rP itchard Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation J. Brett rP itchard, Conduct and Belief in the Free Exercise Clause: Developments and Deviations in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association , 76 Cornell L. Rev. 268 (1990) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol76/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONDUCT AND BELIEF IN THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE: DEVELOPMENTS AND DEVIATIONS IN LYNG V NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION INTRODUCTION I am convinced that no liberty is more essential to the contin- ued vitality of the free society which our Constitution guarantees than is the religious liberty protected by the Free Exercise Clause explicit in the First Amendment and imbedded in the Fourteenth. -Justice Potter Stewart' The free exercise clause of the first amendment prohibits a leg- islature from enacting laws that interfere with an individual's reli- gious practice and belief.2 The Supreme Court's modem3 free exercise decisions have echoed Justice Stewart's sentiment, applying the strictest scrutiny to laws that conflict with an individual's ability to practice sincerely held religious beliefs. 4 In its most recent deci- sions, however, the Court has reduced the level of scrutiny applied to free exercise challenges, adopting a more restrictive interpreta- tion of the personal religious freedom secured by the first amendment. 5 This Note first explores a normative theory of free exercise pro- tection6-that religious freedom must encompass religious practices and conduct-and then traces the evolution of the Court's standard for protecting free exercise rights. 7 Early Court decisions adopted a strict construction of the free exercise clause, protecting freedom of I Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 413 (1963) (Stewart, J., concurring). 2 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohib- iting the free exercise thereof .. " U.S. CONST. amend. I. The first amendment free- doms were first incorporated into the fourteenth amendment and applied to the states in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940). s Modem free exercise doctrine originated in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). See infra notes 74-87 and accompanying text. 4 See infra notes 77-131 and accompanying text. 5 See infra notes 148-98 and accompanying text (discussion of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988)); see also Employment Div. v. Smith, 110 S. Ct. 1595 (holding that the free exercise clause permits a state to prohibit sacramental peyote use and to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use), reh'g denied, 110 S. Ct. 2605 (1990). In Smith, the Court reversed the Oregon Supreme Court's holding that the first amendment protects good faith use of peyote for religious purposes even if state law does not permit its sacramental use. See Smith v. Employment Div., 307 Or. 68, 736 P.2d 146 (1988), rev'd, 110 S. Ct. 1595, reh'g denied, 110 S. Ct. 2605 (1990). 6 See infra notes 13-27 and accompanying text. 7 See infra notes 33-131 and accompanying text. 268 1990] NOTE-FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE 269 belief but allowing the state to regulate religious practices and con- duct.8 In later cases the Court applied strict scrutiny to protect reli- gious practices and conduct by focusing on the effect of the offending regulation rather than the form of its burden. 9 In this way, the Court expanded protection of religious practices and con- duct. In Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery ProtectiveAssociation, 10 how- ever, the Court applied minimal scrutiny to a claim by American Indians that a proposed government road would destroy their sa- cred religious grounds and prevent their free exercise of religion." Lyng held that laws that tend to discourage religious practice but do not coerce conduct contrary to religious belief need not meet a stan- dard of strict scrutiny. 12 This Note argues that Lyng incorrectly based its analysis on the form of the regulation, disregarding its del- eterious effect on the Indians' ability to freely exercise their religion. As a result, Lyng narrowed the scope of free exercise protection. This Note concludes that the Court should have focused on the ef- fect of the burden and applied strict scrutiny to the challenged regu- lation in accordance with prior precedent. I BACKGROUND A. The Elements of Free Exercise: Belief and Conduct The free exercise clause guarantees individuals the freedom to hold any religious belief and the right to witness those beliefs in a manner consonant with their faith and conscience.' 3 Although the language of the clause provides textual support for the protection of religious "exercise" or practice, the Supreme Court originally ap- plied the guarantee of religious freedom only to belief.'4 The Con- stitution does not specify the nature or scope of religious freedom, and the First Congress's debates reveal little more than concern for 8 See infra notes 33-45 and accompanying text (discussion of United States v. Rey- nolds, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)). 9 See infra notes 77-105 and accompanying text (discussion of Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)); infra notes 109-20 and accompanying text (discussion of Wiscon- sin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)); infra notes 121-31 and accompanying text (discus- sion of Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707 (1981)). 10 485 U.S. 439 (1988). 11 See infra notes 148-198 and accompanying text (discussion of Lyng). 12 Lyng, 485 U.S. at 451. 13 See Ira C. Lupu, Free Exercise Exemption and Religious Institutions: The Case of Employ- ment Discrimination,67 B.U.L. Rev. 391,416 (1987) (discussing the first amendment guar- antee of the substantive rights of religious liberty); see also Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (free exercise encompasses both belief and practice). 14 See infra notes 33-45 and accompanying text (discussion of United States v. Rey- nolds, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)). 270 CORNELL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 76:268 the relationship between conscientious belief and its expression.1 5 Nevertheless, the Court and commentators have recognized that the free exercise clause must protect religious conduct or it will fail to adequately safeguard the principal tenet of religious freedom-the freedom of belief.16 "True" free exercise claims involve religious conduct primarily and belief secondarily.' 7 Most commentators recognize that a state can never successfully regulate belief per se.' s The characteristics of self-determination, free will, and rationality reflect qualities of au- tonomous human beings. 19 They define an inherent condition of freedom, a condition that the state can never directly regulate. Viewed in this way, rights of free exercise are largely rights of auton- omy. 20 For instance, laws can prevent one from acting in a certain way, but they cannot make one believe such action is morally wrong. Similarly, religious belief may prevent one from acting in a certain way even though the state does not proscribe the action. Only in an Orwellian nightmare could the state regulate individual autonomy of thought.2 1 Accordingly, government regulations affecting reli- gion necessarily focus on conduct, that is, on those actions that wit- ness belief;22 they can only indirectly impact belief itself. While individual autonomy may not itself provide the basis for significant 15 MICHAELJ. MALBIN, RELIGION AND POLITICS: THE INTENTIONS OF THE AUTHORS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT 19 (1978). 16 See, e.g., Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 218 (1972) (free exercise designed to prevent undermining of religious practices); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 410 (1962) (state may not pressure individuals to abandon religious belief by conditioning receipt of benefits upon foregoing religious practices). 17 Ira C. Lupu, Keeping the Faith: Religion, Equality and Speech in the U.S. Constitution, 18 CONN. L. REv. 739, 772 n. 155 (1986). "True" free exercise cases are decided solely on the basis of the free exercise clause and not in conjunction with other constitutional provisions such as free speech or equal protection. See, e.g., Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 480 U.S. 136 (1987) (holding that a state may not deny unemploy- ment benefits to religious convert whose employer discharged her for her subsequent refusal to work on the day of her Sabbath); Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) (holding that a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses who quit his job in a steel foundry for religious reasons could not be denied unemployment benefits on the ground that his reason for quitting did not constitute 'good cause'); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (holding that compulsory school attendance law that conflicted with Amish reli- gious practice violated free exercise clause); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (holding that state may not deny unemployment benefits to Seventh-Day Adventist whose employer discharged her for her refusal to work on the day of her Sabbath). 18 See Lupu, supra note 13, at 416-17 n.93. 19 John Garvey, Free Exercise and the Values of Religious Liberty, 18 CONN. L. REV.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Nondelegation and the Unitary Executive
    NONDELEGATION AND THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE Douglas H. Ginsburg∗ Steven Menashi∗∗ Americans have always mistrusted executive power, but only re- cently has “the unitary executive” emerged as the bogeyman of Amer- ican politics. According to popular accounts, the idea of the unitary executive is one of “presidential dictatorship”1 that promises not only “a dramatic expansion of the chief executive’s powers”2 but also “a minimum of legislative or judicial oversight”3 for an American Presi- dent to exercise “essentially limitless power”4 and thereby to “destroy the balance of power shared by our three co-equal branches of gov- ernment.”5 Readers of the daily press are led to conclude the very notion of a unitary executive is a demonic modern invention of po- litical conservatives,6 “a marginal constitutional theory” invented by Professor John Yoo at UC Berkeley,7 or a bald-faced power grab con- jured up by the administration of George W. Bush,8 including, most ∗ Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ∗∗ Olin/Searle Fellow, Georgetown University Law Center. The authors thank Richard Ep- stein and Jeremy Rabkin for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 John E. Finn, Opinion, Enumerating Absolute Power? Who Needs the Rest of the Constitution?, HARTFORD COURANT, Apr. 6, 2008, at C1. 2 Tim Rutten, Book Review, Lincoln, As Defined by War, L.A. TIMES, Oct. 29, 2008, at E1. 3 Editorial, Executive Excess, GLOBE & MAIL (Toronto), Nov. 12, 2008, at A22. 4 Robyn Blumner, Once Again We’ll Be a Nation of Laws, ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolving the Free Exercise and Establishment Conflict in Caldor V
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 35 Issue 1 Article 8 1984 Resolving the Free Exercise and Establishment Conflict in Caldor v. Thornton: Anlysis of Legislation Designed to Protect Religious Freedom or Prevent Religious Discrimination Gale Westhafer Kathryn M. Hartrick Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gale Westhafer and Kathryn M. Hartrick, Resolving the Free Exercise and Establishment Conflict in Caldor v. Thornton: Anlysis of Legislation Designed to Protect Religious Freedom or Prevent Religious Discrimination, 35 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 132 (1984) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol35/iss1/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Note RESOLVING THE FREE EXERCISE AND ESTABLISHMENT CONFLICT IN CALDOR V. THORNTON: ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR PREVENT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION In Caldor v. Thornton, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that a statute permit- ting employees to refuse to work on their sabbath violated the first amendment as an impermissible establishment of religion. This Case Note argues that the Connecticut Supreme Court incorrectly applied the current establishment clause test and should
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Challenges to State COVID-19 Orders
    October 2020 Legal Challenges to State COVID-19 Orders Scores of lawsuits have been filed across the country challenging the use of state executive authority in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.i The lawsuits are being brought in both state and federal courts and make claims based on both state and federal law. Two noteworthy categories of lawsuits have emerged. The first category is lawsuits based on state law claims alleging an overreach or misuse of state executive power. The second category is lawsuits accusing state executives of violating civil liberties and other rights protected by the United States Constitution and federal law.ii Lawsuits Based on State Law and Use of Executive Authority Key Findings and Considerations • The underlying legal authority of state Of primary concern are lawsuits being brought under executives to respond to public health state law claims and aiming to eliminate executive crises is being challenged. public health authority. These suits often allege an • Claims are being made that public overreach or misuse of state executive power and health falls outside of the state include claims that the executive actions violate the executive’s emergency powers. non-delegation doctrine (i.e., legislative bodies • The judicial deference to state action cannot delegate their power to the executive), that in response to public health the emergency response laws are a violation of the emergencies afforded by Jacobson v. separation of powers between the legislative and Massachusetts is being weighed executive branches, that the governor has exceeded against more recent standards of the authority provided by emergency response laws judicial review.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Annual Update
    THE FIRST AMENDMENT 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE Geoffrey R. Stone Louis M. Seidman Cass R. Sunstein Mark V. Tushnet Pamela S. Karlan 1 Page 6. At the end of section 2 of the Note, add the following: For a lively account of the founding generation’s understanding of freedom of speech and of the press, see S. Solomon, Revolutionary Dissent (2016). Page 9. After the quote from John Stuart Mill, add the following: More than two centuries before Mill’s publication of On Liberty, John Milton offered somewhat similar observations about the freedom of speech in his Areopagitica (1644). Consider Blasi, A Reader’s Guide to John Milton’s Areopagitica, 1973 Sup. Ct. Rev. 273, 293, 298, in which Blasi explains that Milton maintained that freedom of inquiry requires “the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely.” Indeed, among the most important features of Milton’s argument “is the positive value he sees in confronting evil and dangerous ideas.” In his view, “the search for understanding would be much worse off were those ideas not to be available as foils and provocations and were authors and readers not seasoned by the experience of engaging them.” Page 13. After section 2(f) of the Note, add the following: g. M. Redish, The Adversary First Amendment 1-5 (2013): Those free speech theorists who have shaped democratic theories of free expression have almost universally viewed democracy [as] a cooperative pursuit in which individuals collectively “plan for the general welfare” or “forge a common will.” [A better understanding of democracy for First Amendment purposes] adopts a notion of representative governance built on the concept of adversary democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Table of Contents (PDF Download)
    Contents Table of Cases xi Table of Authorities xvii Biographical Notes on Selected U.S. Supreme Court Justices xxiii I. THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SUPREME COURT 1 E. “Case or Controversy” Requirements and the Passive Virtues 1 Gill v. Whitford 1 Rucho v. Common Cause 20 II. FEDERALISM AT WORK: CONGRESS AND THE NATIONAL ECONOMY 53 D. State Regulation of Interstate Commerce 53 E. Preemption 55 III. THE SCOPE OF CONGRESS’S POWERS: TAXING AND SPENDING, WAR POWERS, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, AND STATE AUTONOMY 57 D. The Tenth Amendment as a Federalism-Based Limitation on Congressional Power 57 vii Contents IV. THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL POWERS 61 A. Introduction 61 B. Case Study: Presidential Seizure 62 C. Foreign Affairs 65 D. Domestic Affairs 69 Trump v. Vance 71 Trump v. Mazars, USA 91 Gundy v. United States 103 Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Commission 113 V. EQUALITY AND THE CONSTITUTION 129 C. Equal Protection Methodology: Heightened Scrutiny and the Problem of Race 129 D. Equal Protection Methodology: Heightened Scrutiny and the Problem of Gender 134 E. Equal Protection Methodology: The Problem of Sexual Orientation 136 VI. IMPLIED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 139 The Due Process Clause and the Incorporation Controversy 139 D. Substantive Due Process 140 E. Fundamental Interest and the Equal Protection Clause 142 F. Modern Substantive Due Process: Privacy, Personhood, and Family 143 G. Procedural Due Process 147 H. The Contracts and Takings Clauses 149 viii Contents VII. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 153 A. Introduction 153 B. Content-Based Restrictions: Dangerous Ideas and Information 154 C. Overbreadth, Vagueness, and Prior Restraint 159 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Engel V. Vitale, 370 Us
    ENGEL V. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and legislative powers over the State’s public school system. These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their “Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools,” saying: “We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program.” Shortly after the practice of reciting the Regents' prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of ten pupils brought this action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. The New York Court of Appeals, over the dissents of Judges Dye and Fuld, sustained an
    [Show full text]
  • Rational Basis Or Strict Scrutiny Review? Amanda Mayo†
    Nonresident Vote Dilution Claims: Rational Basis or Strict Scrutiny Review? Amanda Mayo† INTRODUCTION An Illinois resident voting for her US senator no doubt ex- pects that other residents of Illinois also have the same oppor- tunity to cast votes in the election for that office. She probably also assumes that other Illinois residents would have the same stake in the outcome and the same opportunity to vote. But she likely does not expect residents of Michigan or Ohio to cast their own votes in that Illinois election. Similarly, a Chicago school dis- trict resident most likely assumes that other residents of the school district can vote in elections for that school board’s mem- bers. If, however, St. Louis or Cleveland school district residents were to cast votes in the Chicago election, that Chicago resident would likely have grave concerns. While these are extreme examples, certain voters across the country do in fact face situations in which the voting systems uti- lized in their communities allow nonresidents of a jurisdiction to vote in that jurisdiction’s elections. This can occur when state leg- islation is implemented in a locality with unique or overlapping boundaries,1 or when certain communities allow nonresident property owners to vote in local elections.2 These residents may claim that such voting schemes unconstitutionally dilute the im- pact of their votes in their jurisdiction’s elections.3 The Supreme Court has proclaimed that the right to vote commands protection from this kind of dilution, noting that “[t]here is more to the right † BA 2010, New York University; JD Candidate 2017, The University of Chicago Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • The Poor As a Suspect Class Under the Equal Protection Clause: an Open Constitutional Question
    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2010 The oP or as a Suspect Class under the Equal Protection Clause: An Open Constitutional Question Henry Rose Loyola University Chicago, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Rose, Henry, The oorP as a Suspect Class under the Equal Protection Clause: An Open Constitutional Question, 34 Nova Law Review 407 (2010) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE POOR AS A SUSPECT CLASS UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE: AN OPEN CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION HENRY ROSE* (ABSTRACT) Both judges and legal scholars assert that the United States Supreme Court has held that the poor are neither a quasi-suspect nor a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Unit- ed States Constitution. They further assert that this issue was decided by the Supreme Court in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). It is the thesis of this article that the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the poor are a quasi-suspect or a suspect class under Equal Protec- tion. In fact, the majority in San Antonio Independent School District v. Ro- driquez found that the case involved no discrete discrimination against the poor. Whether the poor should constitute a quasi-suspect or suspect class under Equal Protection remains an open constitutional question.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rose by Any Other Name: School Prayer Redefined As a Moment of Silence Is Still Unconstitutional
    Denver Law Review Volume 82 Issue 1 Article 5 December 2020 A Rose by Any Other Name: School Prayer Redefined as a Moment of Silence Is Still Unconstitutional Lee Ann Rabe Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr Recommended Citation Lee Ann Rabe, A Rose by Any Other Name: School Prayer Redefined as a Moment of Silence Is Still Unconstitutional, 82 Denv. U. L. Rev. 57 (2004). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME: SCHOOL PRAYER REDEFINED AS A MOMENT OF SILENCE IS STILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEE ANN RABEt I. INTRODUCTION Views on prayer in public schools have been sharply divided ever since the Supreme Court affirmed the separation of church and state in that setting.' Various political interest groups have repeatedly attempted to "return God to the classroom" by introducing legislation aimed at re- storing prayer to public schools.2 Since the terrorist attacks of September 11 th, 2001, there is a renewed interest in school prayer.3 Many state governments are considering passing legislation mandating a "moment of silence" or otherwise promoting prayer in public schools.4 The issue of f Lee Ann Rabe: law clerk to the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; B.A. in English, The Ohio State University; J.D., The Ohio State Uni- versity Moritz College of Law, Class of 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1986 State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A. Farber Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Farber, Daniel A., "State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause." (1986). Constitutional Commentary. 173. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/173 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]. STATE REGULATION AND THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Daniel A. Farber* The commerce clause empowers Congress to "regulate Com­ merce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."I Although it speaks only of congressional power, the clause has been interpreted to empower the federal courts to enjoin state laws that interfere unduly with interstate commerce.z Since the Marshall Court, the Supreme Court has continually modified its definition of the judicial role in overseeing state regula­ tion.3 The Court's current view of the so-called "dormant" com­ merce clause, in a nutshell, is as follows.4 State regulations having a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce are subject to stringent judicial scrutiny even if the discrimination was inadvertent.S On the other hand, regulations that burden interstate commerce without discriminating against it are subject to a less rigorous balancing test:6 a state law that burdens local and interstate commerce equally will be upheld if the law's local benefits outweigh the burden * Professor of Law, University of Minnesota.
    [Show full text]