Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Con Law 2
FREEDOM OF EXCERCISE
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| 1ST Amendment | shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Considerations for a law and its connection to religion: is there a separate secular basis, governmental interest, foster exclusive entanglement |
| Religion | US V. BALLARD - I am movement - No matter how improbable the ds relgious beleifs seem, you cannot question the valdity of those beleifs but question SNICERITY |
| Gov Limits | infringes the 1st Amendment when it imposes a significant burden on 1st Amendment activity Prior to smith- subject to strict scrutiny Post smith – governmental infringement of religious exercise is typically subject to rational basis review |
| GL: Incidential | Free exercise clause afford an individual protection for certain forms of government compulsion, it does not afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the governments internal procedures - Lying v. NA |
| GL: RESTRICTIONS | i. court protects religious beleifs from both government actions that directly target religious beleifs and those that indirectly affect religious beleifs |
| GL:R: Marriage | religious beleifs accepted as a justification of an over act made criminal by law of the land Beleifs v. action laws are fro govt actions and while they cannot interfrer with mere religious beleiefs and opinions they may with practices RENYOLDS V. US |
| GL:R: Schoolish- rise of SS | Meyer v. Nebraska- Limits of state power over parent authority- tecahing forgien language – balancing test- not enough state Pierece v. Soc. Of sis- Attempt to focre comp of attendance at public school- balancing test- not enough state interest |
| R: Schoolish- rise of SS : WIS V. YODER | First does it violate the right of freedom of religion? -Is the belief sincerely held Does state impose an undue burden Second major reason for overriding: If the right is violated DOES states interest significantly outweigh the individual interest |
| GL:R: rise of SS - sherbert | No compelling state interest and clear cimpulsion, employment benfits - SS SHERBERT V. vERNER |
| GL:R: rise of SS: TEST | Does the government create an 'infringement' on a constitutional right to practice religion? Does the govt have a comp interest which justifies the burden? No -If so, are there alternative means to achieve the gov goals without burdening religion? |
| SMITH RULE AND SHIFT | neutral, generally applicable laws, that incidentally burden religious exercise, are subject to rational basis review under the Free Exercise Clause. (when applies) i. Employment division v. smith - RATIONAL BASIS |
| Smith: Impact- RFRA | Religious freedom restoration Act – designed to make it harder for the federal government to interfere with a persons freedom of religion unless there is a compelling interest |
| Smith: Impact- case | Boerne v Flores (1997), SCOTUS concluded that the Constitution gave Congress only the power to adopt remedial measures consistent with SCOTUS interpretations |
| Smith: Test | states will have to satisfy heightened scrutiny (except for hybrid unemployment) only when a law specifically targets religious practice Sherbert - compelling interest- fedreal , state law- use smith - rational basis - where the law is coming from |
| Limited Use of Strict scrutiny | When preconditions for smith are not met Smith rule inapplicable because the challenged law was not neutral of generally applicable Smith ruel does not apply to a law if it is not neutral |
| LUSS: | target, employment, army, generally avalible, |
| LUSS: Target | SATRIA- ;UKUMI Law targeting religious beliefs is never permissible: A law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation the law is not neutral- most most rigiours of scutriny |
| LUSS:Employment | GROFF V. DEJOY Employers must reasonably accom an employee's religious beliefs unless doing so would result in "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer's particular business," |
| LUSS:E: exception | undue hardship under title 7 means what it says and courts should resolve whtere the hardship would be substatitnl in the context of an pmployers business in the commonsense manner that it would use in applying any such test |
| LUSS:E:E: fACTORS | in the case at hand, including the particular accommodations at issue and their practical impact in the light of the nature, size, and operating cost of an employer |
| LUSS: ARMY | strict scrutiny standard application to RFRA is exceptionally demanding gov cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion gov can regulate practices with rules of general applicability even if such rules have the effect of limiting religious rights |
| LUSS: A: details | Only those interest of the highest order can outweigh legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion RFRA does not permit the federal government to second- guess the reasonableness of the religious belief |
| LUSS: A: FACTORS | RA Request= Unit or individual readiness, good orderor discipline, health, safety |
| LUSS: Generally Applicable | denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion that can be justified only by the state interest of the highest order Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer , BLANE AMENDMENTS |
| Ministerail exception | Hosanna-tabor v. EEOC cant interfere with he hiring or firing of a minter teacher person – even when discrimination - right to shape own faith- broad |
| Ministerail exception : Contines | Serbian eastern orthodox v. Milivojevich hierarchial religious organizations to establish their own rules and regs for internal discipline and government and to create tribunals for adjudicating dsiputes over thes eamtetrs |
| Ministerail exception : Contines . | Corporation of presiding bishop v. amos- 1987 example Prohibtis coruts from revrieing entrinal polices, prodcudesr, and such Civil courts should nto review the policyes- included whethre the chcurhc follwoed theire own policieys s lots of autonomy |
| Extra notes: endager community | 1. Vaccination – although your church may be opposed to such – govenremnt wont allow it in schools – Jacobson v. Mass- poss change 2. Poisonous snakes- Although you church practices snake handling – gov wont allow- Bunn v. Nc 1949 |
| extra notes: Draft | 1. Welsh v. US- 1970 – quaker church forbids military services government can draft you in an alternative services – like hospital work |
Created by:
Vanderhoof_