Lemon V. Kourtzman, 2003: A Case Study

Two more cases that aroused much debate on the issue were the 2003 cases of Gratz vs. Bollinger and Grutter vs. Bollinger, in which two more-than-qualified students applied to the University of Michigan and were denied due to acceptance policies. The two women, Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, took their cases to the Supreme Court with the plea that the University of Michigan is “treating people differently based on skin color, and that is unconstitutional” (Mears). The university openly stated that they have a point system in their acceptance process in which students receive extra point if they are of minority status. Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan stated, “[W]e

Does the Alabama statute 16-1-20.1, allowing a period of silence for meditation or voluntary prayer violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause that is applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment?

A more recent case which is similar to Everson v. Board of Education, is Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. The taxpayers of Arizona were challenging the fact that a state law was providing tax credits to those who were donating to school tuition organizations in order for the schools to provide scholarships to those attending private/religious schools. The claim was that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.), which is the first of several pronouncements within the First Amendment within the U.S. Constitution, or the first ten amendments within the Bill of Rights, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Bill of Rights, 2016.). The Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 and argued that the plaintiff did not have enough information and standing to bring to the suit. Justice Kagen, in her dissent, stated that “cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government object; to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.). Although the ruling was made on “narrow grounds”, according to Peter Wooley, a political science and direction of the PublicMind Poll, the plaintiff in one “guise or another will be back another day” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.).

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

The Oklahoma State Capitol building has had many political events shake the foundation of the Oklahoman way of life, but few have challenged the fundamental ideas that America was founded on. The Ten Commandments have represented more than just Christianity, but have outlined the moral standards of a fresh, new country. The second President of the United States of America, John Adams, proclaimed “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other (The Commandments).” Now these ideas that helped build one of the most influential nations are coming under attack. One of the main problems is the Americans that want to do something do not know how. They do not understand how the Government and its branches work together for the people. To understand and combat these issues, Americans need to know how cases get to the courts and to Congress, and how to get their say into these matters.

(Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof)

Does the state requiring all board of educations in New Jersey to reimburse parents whose kids attend Catholic schools and take public transportation violate the 1A rights regarding the Establishment Clause?

Is the reading of Bible verses before class deemed unconstitutional under the 1st and 14th Amendments? The plaintiff stated that the Bible readings before class goes against his family’s 1st and 14th amendments. Their freedom of religion was compromised when Schempp’s children had to sit in public schools and be subjected to the Bible, when their family is Atheists. As well that they have equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the

In the state of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island both states had established a law that allowed the local government to fund educational programs that were religious based. The law was passed in 1968 through the Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Alton Lemon, an instructor, did not agree with the law that had been passed. He believed that is violated the First Amendment. (The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion...)

Perry, the court abandoned the lemon test and decided to look at the monument’s nature and the nation’s history. The court held that this is more helpful when dealing with “ passive monuments”. The court gives no clear guidance on what a passive is, but we can distill some headlines from its decision in that case. A passive display is “a far more passive use “ than the use of the Ten commandments in Stone v. Graham. Also, it should take the plaintiff, any plaintiff , a long period of time from encountering it to suing it. This thing emphasizes the non –engaging use of the ten commandments. It is worth noting that this approach is problematic because the fact that Texans didn’t challenged the monument for 40 years is a logical consequence in a state where the percentage of Christians is higher than other states. A religious monument is less likely to be challenged in a state with lower Christians percentage. This part of this approach doesn’t say anything about the religiosity or secularity of the monument. Rather, it says a lot about the religiosity of the

The federal district court ruled against New York City about the appeal to allow public school teachers to provide instruction to students in parochial schools. The Court interpreted the Establishment Clause as a strict separation between religion and government affairs. The parochial school board, and some parents brought this case to the Supreme Court to seek review. The outcome of the suit concluded with a 5-4 decision. The court stated that money could be funded by federal programs to provide aid to challenged students in parochial schools without defying the Establishment Clause.

“It is unconstitutional for the school to display the Christian flag. The display of this patently religious symbol by the District confers government

Since the approval of the 1st Amendment in 1791, which provides in part,” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..” the role of religion in the public sphere has been the subject matter for a long contradictory controversy varying from the Jeffersonian separationist views that call for a “Yuuge wall“ between state and church to the accommodationists who see religion as an integral part of the national heritage. The U.S. Supreme Court is vested with the task to tackle this question through cases where religious symbols being displayed in public spaces had been challenged. To sum up the current status of the Supreme Court position on this matter, it would be helpful to anticipate that on a potential claim. The constitutionality of Moses statue above the Hinds County Courthouse in Jackson, Mississippi .

Commissioners in a North Carolina county had violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution by opening their meetings with Christian prayer and inviting the audience to stand and join the activity, a federal appeals court has ruled on July 14.

A court is likely to find the public school in violation of the Establishment Clause in letting the School band to prominently display a banner with bible passages despite the protests of an atheist student, Eric Stevens, as the band’s actions were allowed by the school. The band’s actions fail to meet the requirements of the “Lemon test,” the “endorsement test,” and the “coercion test,” tests all used to see if an action violates the clause. The band created the banner to promote their own Christian beliefs to which the school admitted so, a reasonable observer would see the banner as one representing the school’s beliefs in the context of the pep rally, and Eric Stevens was coerced to be in that situation against his conscience as all student athletes were expected to be present. The Establishment Clause derives from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and it provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. Amend. I. Issues arise under this clause whenever government seeks to accommodate the free exercise of religion as it prohibits federal and state governments from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another.