Strangers on a Hill

Strangers on a Hill Marbury vs. Madison - judicial review Barron vs. Baltimore - States excluded from Bill of Rights Reynolds vs. U.S. - Protected religious thought, not action. All levels of government were forbidden to punish citizens for their beliefs but had authority to regulate their actions Cantwells - Free exercise applied to states. Freedom to believe is absolute, freedom to act can be restricted. Sherbert vs. Verner - fired because refused to work on Saturday because she belonged to the Seventh Day Adventist Church which observed Saturday as the day of rest. She didn?t receive compensation from unemployment because she ?refused? to work. Supreme Court ruled the state didn?t have compelling interest to restrict her religious practices. Yoder - It was against the Amish religion to send their children to school beyond eighth grade. The court found that the school attendance law did in fact interfere with the Amish families freedom to act in accordance with their religious beliefs. The state had failed to sustain its case that its interest in ?establishing and maintaining an educational system? trumped the Amish families right to the free exercise of their religion.Compelling interest upheld Must compel all levels of Government before infringing on religious activities, to meet the standard that they had a compelling reason to do so. U.S. vs. Lee - Keeping taxes is a high order of national importance ; trumps religious practice. ?Valid law of general applicability? Goldman vs. Weinberger - Goldman wore jewish skull cap violating military uniform regulations. Military regulations prohibited wearing caps when entering a building. Struggle over which brach of government had power to define constitutional rights and liberties. Compelling interest doesn?t apply. Goldman is not a civilian, the military is different. Congress was willing to challenge Supreme Court as sole expositor of 1st amendment rights. O?Lane vs. Shabazz - Black Muslims in prison not allowed to attend Friday services because where it was held was off limits to dangerous inmates. Argument - actions taken to accommodate prisoners cold create serious security issues. 5 v. 4 victory for jail, burden of proof should be on prisoners. Distinctive institution with tightly structured rules in which order is paramount was entitled to invoke a compelling state interest. Many amicus curial briefs were filed - future conflicts over free expression of religion. Alfred Smith vs. Oregon - fired from ADAPT for smoking peyote during religious sacrament and denied unemployment because he was fired for misconduct. Oregon ruled outright prohibition of peyote in religious ceremonies violate first right amendment. State?s interest must be balanced against the individuals interests, religious conduct must give way to regulations that serve public interests of compelling importance. Rejected claims of Native American?s saying Oregon?s banning of peyote violated free exercise of religion. Oregon law didn?t target a religion, statute was a law of general applicability. Incidental burdens imposed on religious groups by laws not directed at religion must be subject to compelling state interest test. Compelling state interest broken - granted state governments broad powers over religious practices. What authority does Congress have to do this? Section 5 14th Amendment Congress reacts - Religious Freedom Restoration Act - attractive title for support It prohibited any government authority from restricting anyone?s free exercise of religion unless ?the restriction is in the form of a law of general applicability that does not target religion, and the government authority proves that the restriction is the least restrictive way to further a compelling government interest.? Support a popular bill -- who cars if its overturned, you still get the support of your constituents. Attempt by Congress to usurp power of Courts? Boerne v. Flores - Denise permit to church in historic preservation zone to tear down the church and rebuild and expand it when they apply for permission. Chose to file suit under RFRA. Appeal of case - 1st amendment rights Case involved federalism and separation of powers. RLPA Land use (Boerne) constitutional authority came from the Commerce Clause Religious rights of inmates - Spending Clause forbid federally supported state prisons to abridge the free exercise of an inmates religion without a compelling state interest. Proposed with closed rule Might be used to discriminate in employment Changed to RLUPIA Violated Federalism