Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Moving the bar down: A look into the increasing power of the Free Exercise clause.

11/11/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
By: David Katz
​

David Katz is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences with an undeclared major
If asked what rights come with being an American, what would you say?
I think a lot of us would talk about the 1st amendment to the Constitution. It reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of the speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [1] In the American public conscious, the First Amendment is representative of a core American value: that we have the right to be an individual. 
Focusing on the first part, we see that the right to freely practice religion is divided into two clauses: the establishment clause, which prevents the government from officially establishing a religion, and the free exercise clause, which prevents the government from restricting religious practice. The provisions act as an upper and lower bound for what the government can do in relation to religion. The government cannot go as far as to hinder somebody’s ability to practice religion, but they are also not allowed to endorse a religion to the point where it seems state sponsored. 

To illustrate how these two clauses interact, one can look towards Locke v. Davey (2003). In Locke v. Davey, Washington State had a program called the “Promise Scholarship Program” which provided money for gifted students to attend college [2]. However, the Washington State Constitution had what is known as a Blaine Amendment, which prevents government funding from going towards sectarian institutions [3]. Therefore, when Locke attempted to use a promise scholarship to obtain a degree in devotional theology, the state shut him down [3]. The state was attempting to circumvent establishing a religion. In the process, Locke argued, the state was hindering his ability to practice religion, as they were not providing him the money simply because it was a religious endeavor [4]. The court ruled in the state’s favor. The court stated that, if the state wanted to, they could have allowed Davey to get a degree in devotional theology while remaining above the establishment clause [5]. However, the state preventing him from obtaining a degree in devotional theology does not violate the free exercise clause [6]. Indeed, as Justice Rehnquist summarized in his opinion in Locke, “these two clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, are frequently in tension. Yet we have long said that ‘there is room for play in the joints’ between them” [7]. 

However, in recent years, it seems as if the upper bound restriction of the free exercise clause has been moving down. Over the past four years alone, there have been two rulings that lower the bar for what qualifies as a government action preventing the practice of religion. In 2017, the Supreme Court heard a case entitled Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017). Trinity Lutheran, a church of the same name in Missouri operated a learning center that, while admitting students of any religion, incorporated religious instruction into its curriculum and was operated on the property of the church [8]. The Trinity Lutheran church had a playground on its premises, and the playground was open for community use. The church sought to replace the gravel floor of the playground with a rubber floor, by getting funding from a state-wide initiative [7]. However, much like Washington, Missouri has a Blaine Amendment, preventing it from funding sectarian institutions. When the state did not allow Trinity Lutheran to participate in the program because of their religious affiliation, the church sued, claiming that it was a violation of the free exercise clause. It was a very similar argument to the one made by Locke. However, in this case, the court ruled in favor of the religious party. In the decision, the court argues that repairing playgrounds is a non-sectarian action. Therefore, since the only way the church could get the grant is if they renounced their religious affiliation, there is a violation of the free exercise clause at play [8]. The bar of what a state can do without violating the free exercise clause has moved down.

In 2021, the bar would move down again. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Montana established a program that gives a tax credit to a citizen that donates towards organizations that award scholarships to private schools [9]. Once again, Montana had a Blaine Amendment, meaning that the program had a rule: if one donated to a scholarship organization that gave scholarships to sectarian schools, one could not get a tax break [10]. The state was sued by Espinoza, the mother of a child who was supposed to be sent to a sectarian school via one of the scholarship programs [11] She argued that the state’s rule violated the free exercise clause, and the Supreme Court agreed [12]. The court argued, once again, that because the only way a school could be eligible would be if they renounced their religious character, that it was a violation of the free exercise clause of the first amendment [13]. This time, the school could very well use the government funding for sectarian purposes, as once a school receives tuition money, neither the donor nor the government has any control regarding what it funds. The bar moves even lower.
​

In 2021, the Supreme Court will hear the case Carson v. Makin. In Carson, there are families living in districts in Maine without a public high school [13]. In those districts, families are allowed to use state funding to go to an “approved” private school [14]. Those private schools must be nonsectarian. [15] Once again, Carson attempted to send his child to a religious private school on state funds. The state denied this request and Carson is now suing [16]. If the court rules in favor of Carson, saying that the state cannot restrict their assistance to non-sectarian schools, it would make the restrictions on the state imposed by the free exercise clause even greater. Indeed, it would take things a step further than Espinoza. In Espinoza, the state was still not directly funding a sectarian education. They were simply giving a tax break to those who did. Although that results in a loss for the state and a gain for the sectarian schools, it was not money coming from the state’s treasury to the school. However, if the court rules in favor of Carson, there would be direct payment involved. The Supreme Court would, essentially be saying, that if a state is giving money to private schools, it cannot choose not to give money to religious ones. The bar would move even lower.

[1] U. S. Const. amend. I. Accessed October 28, 2021. 
[2] Locke, Governor of Washington v. Davey, No. 02-1315., slip op. at (Feb. 25, 2004). Accessed October 28, 2021.
3] Ibid. 2
[4] Ibid. 2
[5] Ibid. 2
[6] Ibid. 2
[7] Ibid. 2
[8] Locke, Governor of Washington v. Davey, No. 02-1315., slip op. at (Feb. 25, 2004). Accessed October 28, 2021. 
[9] Ibid. 8
[10] Ibid. 8
[11] Kendra Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195, slip op. at (June 30, 2020). 
[12] Ibid. 11
[13] Ibid. 11
[14] Ibid. 11
[15] "Carson v. Makin," Oyez, accessed October 28, 202
[16] Ibid. 15
[17] Ibid. 15
[18] Ibid. 15


The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

​
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​