In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in Lemon v. Kurtzman, who created three tests to determine whether a particular law or government policy unconstitutionally promotes religion. Everson v Education Committee (1947) The court investigated whether a New Jersey law that allowed parents who sent their children on public transportation buses to public and private schools, including Catholic parochial schools, to repay, constituted an indirect aid to religion and thus violated the First Amendment settlement clause. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the law was constitutional because transportation refunds were granted to all students, regardless of their religion. In addition, reimbursements were made directly to the parents and not to a religious institution. In this case, the establishment clause was also applied to the actions of state governments. (Citation: 330 U.S. 1) Abington Township School District, Pennsylvania v. Schempp (1963) The court considered whether a law and policy of the Abington School District in Pennsylvania requiring public school students to participate in classroom exercises with daily Bible reading violated students` religious freedom under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In an 8-1 decision, the court found that Pennsylvania law and school district practice violated the settlement clause and the free exercise clause. (Citation: 374 U.S. 203) Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004) The court investigated whether the pawn policy of the Elk Grove Unified School District in California violated the Constitution. The policy requires each elementary school class to recite the oath of allegiance on a daily basis. Michael Newdow, the father of a child in one of the district`s schools, questioned the constitutionality of the county`s policy because the pledge contains the words “under God.” In a unanimous decision, the court found that Newdow, as a non-custodial parent, was not allowed to take the case to court. Accordingly, it set aside the lower court`s finding that Newdow had standing to bring an action and that the collateral policy was unconstitutional. From this point of view, the Court could not proceed procedurally to answer the constitutional question. However, Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O`Connor and Clarence Thomas (in part) wrote separate and concurring opinions that also considered the issue of constitutionality. They wrote that they had concluded “on the merits” that the school district`s policy of reciting the oath of allegiance containing the words “under God” did not violate the settlement clause.
They went on to say, “The phrase `under God` in the pledge seems to be a historical issue that sums up the attitude of the nation`s leaders and manifests itself in many of our public celebrations. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official recognition of the role of religion in our nation`s history abound. They concluded that “the recitation of the descriptive expression `under God` at a patriotic ceremony in which it swears allegiance to the flag and the nation cannot lead to the establishment of a religion or something similar.” (Quote: 542 US 1) Sherbert v. Verner (1963) The court investigated whether the State of South Carolina violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by denying unemployment benefits to a person because he refused a job because he had to work on the Sabbath. The court ruled 7-2 that South Carolina law crippled a person`s right to freely practice his or her religion, in violation of the free exercise clause. (Ref- 374 U.S. 398) The decision prompted the court to offer similar school-sponsored prayers in the consolidated Abington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett (1963). In Angel v. Vitale, 370 U.S.
421 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer in public schools violated the First Amendment rule. The case involved a 22-word nonfaith prayer recommended to school districts by the New York Board of Regents: “Almighty God, we recognize our dependence on you, and we invoke Your blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” Christian Legal Society v Martinez (2010) The court considered whether Hastings College of the Law (Hastings), a school in the Public School System of the University of California, violates the First Amendment by refusing to officially recognize a student organization unless it allows all students to join the group, even if it requires a religious organization to admit homosexual students, who do not adhere to the basic beliefs of the group.