Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. U.S. Const. amend. I.
The Supreme Court has not spoken with perfect clarity on the meaning of the [Establishment] Clause. But [courts] continue[ ] to follow the tripartite test set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). See Am. Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F.3d 1095, 1117 (10th Cir. 2010). Under that test, government action does not violate the Clause if (1) it has a secular purpose; (2) "its principal or primary effect [is] one that neither advances nor inhibits religion"; and (3) it does not "foster an excessive government entanglement with religion." Id. We interpret the first and second prongs of the Lemon test "in light of Justice O'Connor's endorsement test." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). That is, we ask "'whether government's actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion,'" and "'whether, irrespective of government's actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval.'" Id. (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 690 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring)). Fields v. City of Tulsa, (10th Cir. 2014)
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, applie[s] against the states by incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment, see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940). The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires. Thus, the First Amendment prohibits all "governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such." Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 402 (1963). Further, the government may not compel affirmation of religious belief, see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 496 (1961), punish the expression of religious doctrines it believes to be false, see United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86-88 (1944), impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status, see McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 629 (1978), or lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious authority or dogma, see Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem'l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 445-47 (1969). Central Rabbinical Congress of United States & Canada v. NYC Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, (2nd Cir. 2014)
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 44 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions and two Supreme Court decisions that interpret the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The selection of decisions spans from 2012 to the date of publication.