11.2 Freedom of Religion: Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses

The First Amendment protects religious freedom through two key clauses. The Establishment Clause prevents the government from favoring or establishing a religion, while the Free Exercise Clause safeguards individuals' right to practice their faith without interference.

Courts use various tests to interpret these clauses, balancing religious liberty with other interests. The Lemon test, endorsement test, and coercion test help evaluate Establishment Clause issues, while the Sherbert test and Smith decision guide Free Exercise cases.

Establishment Clause Tests

Defining the Establishment Clause

Top images from around the web for Defining the Establishment Clause

• 

  Separation of Church and State Hangs on this Supreme Court Case - Citizen Truth View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Seperation of Church and State | ... first things first. O L… | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Separation of Church and State Hangs on this Supreme Court Case - Citizen Truth View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Seperation of Church and State | ... first things first. O L… | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 2

Top images from around the web for Defining the Establishment Clause

• 

  Separation of Church and State Hangs on this Supreme Court Case - Citizen Truth View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Seperation of Church and State | ... first things first. O L… | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Separation of Church and State Hangs on this Supreme Court Case - Citizen Truth View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Seperation of Church and State | ... first things first. O L… | Flickr View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 2

• Establishment Clause prohibits government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another
• Found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
• Aims to maintain separation between church and state
• Prevents government from endorsing or promoting religious beliefs or practices
• Applies to federal, state, and local governments through the incorporation doctrine

Lemon Test and Its Application

• Lemon test developed by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
• Consists of three prongs to determine if a government action violates the Establishment Clause:
  • Secular purpose: Government action must have a primarily secular purpose
  • Primary effect: Principal effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion
  • Excessive entanglement: Must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion
• Applied in cases involving government funding of religious organizations (parochial school aid)
• Used to evaluate the constitutionality of religious displays on public property (nativity scenes)

Alternative Establishment Clause Tests

• Endorsement test focuses on whether a reasonable observer would perceive government action as endorsing religion
  • Developed by Justice O'Connor in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
  • Examines both the purpose and effect of government action
  • Applied in cases involving religious symbols in public spaces (Ten Commandments displays)
• Coercion test evaluates whether government action coerces individuals to participate in religious activities
  • Introduced in Lee v. Weisman (1992)
  • Examines if government action pressures individuals to support or participate in religion
  • Used in cases involving school prayer and religious ceremonies at public events (graduation prayers)

Free Exercise Clause Tests and Standards

Understanding the Free Exercise Clause

• Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' right to practice their religion without government interference
• Found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
• Guarantees freedom to believe and freedom to act on religious beliefs
• Prohibits government from targeting specific religious practices or beliefs
• Applies to federal, state, and local governments through the incorporation doctrine

Strict Scrutiny and the Sherbert Test

• Strict scrutiny standard applied to free exercise cases before 1990
• Sherbert test established in Sherbert v. Verner (1963) consists of four prongs:
  1. Burden: Does the law or government action substantially burden religious exercise?
  2. Compelling interest: Does the government have a compelling interest in the law or action?
  3. Least restrictive means: Is the law or action the least restrictive means of achieving the interest?
  4. Generally applicable: Is the law neutral and generally applicable?
• Required government to show a compelling interest and narrow tailoring when burdening religious exercise
• Applied in cases involving unemployment benefits (denial based on religious observance)

Employment Division v. Smith and Its Impact

• Employment Division v. Smith (1990) changed the standard for evaluating free exercise claims
• Held that neutral, generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious practice do not violate the Free Exercise Clause
• Eliminated the requirement for strict scrutiny in most free exercise cases
• Focused on whether laws specifically target religious practices or beliefs
• Led to the development of legislative acts to protect religious freedom (Religious Freedom Restoration Act)

Legislative Acts Protecting Religious Freedom

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

• Passed by Congress in 1993 in response to Employment Division v. Smith
• Aimed to restore the strict scrutiny standard for free exercise claims
• Requires government to show a compelling interest and use least restrictive means when substantially burdening religious exercise
• Applies to federal laws and actions
• Struck down as applied to state and local governments in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
• Remains in effect for federal laws and actions
• Used in cases involving religious exemptions from federal regulations (contraception mandate)

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

• Enacted by Congress in 2000 to address specific areas of religious freedom
• Focuses on two main areas:
  1. Land use regulations affecting religious institutions
  2. Religious rights of institutionalized persons
• Prohibits government from imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise through land use regulations
• Protects religious rights of prisoners and other institutionalized persons
• Applies strict scrutiny standard to government actions in these areas
• Used in cases involving zoning restrictions on religious buildings (churches, mosques)
• Applied to protect religious practices of prisoners (dietary restrictions, religious services)

Key Principles and Accommodations

Separation of Church and State

• Fundamental principle derived from the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses
• Aims to prevent government entanglement with religion and protect religious liberty
• Prohibits government from favoring or disfavoring particular religious beliefs or practices
• Applies to various areas of public life:
  • Public education (school prayer, religious instruction)
  • Government funding (aid to religious schools, faith-based initiatives)
  • Public displays (religious symbols on government property)
• Balanced against the need to accommodate religious practices in some contexts
• Continues to be a subject of debate and interpretation in constitutional law

Religious Accommodation in Public and Private Spheres

• Religious accommodation involves adjusting rules or practices to allow for religious observance
• Applies in various contexts:
  • Workplace accommodations (schedule adjustments for religious holidays)
  • Educational settings (excused absences for religious observances)
  • Government services (religious dietary requirements in prisons)
• Balances religious freedom with other interests (public safety, efficiency)
• Limited by undue hardship standard in employment context
• Governed by both constitutional principles and statutory provisions (Title VII of Civil Rights Act)
• Continues to evolve through court decisions and legislative actions
• Raises questions about the extent of required accommodations and potential conflicts with other rights (LGBTQ+ rights)