The Supreme Court Benches the Separation of Church and State
In two cases this term, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that there鈥檚 little room for the separation of church and state in its regressive constitutional framework. For nearly 75 years, the court has recognized that both of the First Amendment鈥檚 religion clauses are vital to protecting religious freedom: The Establishment Clause protects against governmental endorsement and imposition of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause ensures the right to practice your faith without harming others. No more. The court has increasingly treated the Establishment Clause as a historical footnote, threatening both the independence of religion and the religious neutrality of the state.
In , the court held for the first time that a state must fund religious activity as part of an educational aid program. Maine鈥檚 tuition assistance program pays for students in rural areas with no public high school to attend another public or private school. Concerned with maintaining a strong separation between religion and government, Maine has long prohibited the use of public funds to finance religious instruction and indoctrination. Many other states have adopted similar provisions, in some instances dating back two centuries. And with good reason: Avoiding compulsory taxpayer support for religion lies at the heart of the Constitution鈥檚 religious liberty protections. In fact, James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment, against taxpayer funding of religion, including religious education, because it would be the first step in allowing the government to force citizens to conform to the preferred faith of those in power.
The Supreme Court's rulings in Carson and Kennedy lead "us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation."
For these reasons, the Supreme Court has states鈥� ability to restrict taxpayer support for religious educational activities. Indeed, for decades, the court rejected efforts to direct government funds to religious uses. In Carson, however, six justices disregarded these longstanding, historical church-state concerns. According to the court, state funding of religious indoctrination is not only permissible, but now required in some circumstances. The Carson majority thus firmly placed the free-exercise rights of the Christian plaintiffs over the Establishment Clause rights of the broader populace.
One week later, it did the same in , in which the court ruled in favor of a Christian public-school football coach who prayed with his players while on duty. Ignoring well-established precedent that prohibits school officials from participating in prayer with students, the majority embraced what one lower court judge called a 鈥渄eceitful narrative鈥� spun by Kennedy and his lawyers. The court characterized the coach鈥檚 prayers as 鈥渜uiet鈥� and 鈥減ersonal,鈥� but they were nothing of the sort; Coach Kennedy delivered his prayers audibly, at the 50-yard line, immediately after games, often surrounded by students.
The court said that Kennedy had abandoned any intent to pray with students, but in fact he repeatedly demanded that he be able to continue praying with his students, declaring that he was 鈥渉elping these kids be better people.鈥� The court also claimed that no students were coerced into prayer, but the record shows that at least some players joined Kennedy in prayer solely to avoid separating themselves from their team. And in any event, that misses the broader point: As the court had for over a , merely forcing students to choose between participating in teacher-led prayer, protesting, or avoiding certain school activities where official prayer occurs is inherently coercive and therefore unconstitutional.
Taken together, the court鈥檚 rulings in Carson and Kennedy lead 鈥渦s to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation,鈥� as Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized in her Carson dissent. These rulings suggest that enforcement of the Establishment Clause is somehow hostile to religion. But the opposite is true: Many people of faith, including and adherents of , strongly support the separation of church and state as a core component of religious liberty. They recognize, as did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other of our nation鈥檚 founders, that religious freedom thrives best when government officials don鈥檛 tip the scales toward their favored religious beliefs.
Nevertheless, in recent years, the court has adopted an approach that would see the lines between church and state hopelessly blurred, if not eliminated altogether. The court has permitted official, nearly exclusively Christian prayer at government meetings and has allowed the government to display giant religious symbols, like a 40-foot Latin cross. The Supreme Court has also sided with those who, in the name of religion, discriminate against customers, employees, and recipients of government-funded social services. With this month鈥檚 decisions, the court has now required that government funds be diverted from a secular education program to support religious education and indoctrination and has allowed school officials to impose religion on public-school students. The ruling in Kennedy is particularly disturbing because, until now, the court has repeatedly that students are impressionable, much more vulnerable to religious coercion, and, thus, deserving of the highest levels of constitutional protection. Instead, the court subverted students鈥� religious liberty to the religious demands of school staff.
The Carson decision could also open the door to broader government funding of religious activities more generally, and Kennedy will likely embolden government employees in other contexts to claim a similar right to promote religion while on duty, even if it infringes on the religious freedom of others. This attack on the Establishment Clause is as unwise as it is infuriating. As Justice O鈥機onnor 17 years ago, 鈥淸a]t a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government ... [o]ur regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish.鈥�
She warned that 鈥淸t]hose who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?鈥� It鈥檚 a question this Supreme Court majority has not deigned to answer, perhaps because there鈥檚 no good reason to abandon the separation of church and state, and every reason to ensure that it remains strong.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON 鈥� The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, 老澳门开奖结果 and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project: 鈥淲hile this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We鈥檙e profoundly frustrated that the administration didn鈥檛 take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.鈥� -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Religious Liberty
Civil Liberties Organizations Unite to Oppose Oklahoma Education Superintendent Ryan Walters鈥� Latest Push for Religion in Public SchoolsCivil Liberties Organizations Unite to Oppose Oklahoma Education Superintendent Ryan Walters鈥� Latest Push for Religion in Public Schools
The 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of Oklahoma, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice are uniting to challenge Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters鈥檚 latest attempt to impose religion on students in the state鈥檚 public school system. On Friday, the coalition sent a letter to every superintendent in Oklahoma urging them not to show or disseminate Walters鈥� prayer video. The letter emphasizes the constitutional requirement for public schools to remain secular and warns that promoting the video to students and parents would violate both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The letter also points out that Superintendent Walters lacks the authority to require local school districts to play the video (or any other video) to their students. On Thursday, to promote his new 鈥淥ffice of Religious Liberty and Patriotism,鈥� Superintendent Walters emailed all superintendents within the state a 鈥淢andatory Announcement鈥� that linked to a video entitled 鈥淧rayer for the Nation.鈥� Additionally, the email asserted that all Oklahoma schools must play the video for all their students and send it to their parents. In the video, Walters blames the 鈥渞adical left鈥� and 鈥渨oke teachers unions鈥� for 鈥渁ttacking鈥� religious liberty and then delivers a lengthy prayer supporting President-elect Donald Trump. Walters encourages students to join in his prayer. 鈥淩equiring students to watch a prayer video violates students鈥� religious freedom, including their Establishment Clause rights,鈥� the coalition鈥檚 letter warns. 鈥淚t is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise[.]鈥� The coalition reminds superintendents of their responsibility to protect all students鈥� religious freedom, regardless of their personal beliefs. By promoting a specific religious perspective, schools risk alienating students who do not share those beliefs, fostering an environment of exclusion and discrimination. The coalition encourages parents and students to report any incidents where the video has been shown or used in schools. Walters separately announced on Thursday that he purchased more than 500 Bibles for Advanced Placement (AP) Government classrooms. In October, the coalition filed a lawsuit on behalf of 32 Oklahomans urging the Oklahoma Supreme Court to block Walters鈥� mandate that all public schools incorporate the bible into their curricula. This coalition stands firm in defending the rights of every student to receive a secular education free from religious influence. A copy of the letter can be found here: https://ffrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/State-Superintendent-Ryan-Walters-OK-Religious-Video-Mandate.pdf -
MaineNov 2024
Religious Liberty
St. Dominic Academy v. MakinSt. Dominic Academy v. Makin
The 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of Maine, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit arguing that religious schools in Maine participating in the state鈥檚 school tuition program must comply with all eligibility requirements of the program 鈥� including a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among other protected characteristics. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Religious Liberty
Court Blocks Louisiana Law Requiring Public Schools to Display Ten Commandments in Every ClassroomCourt Blocks Louisiana Law Requiring Public Schools to Display Ten Commandments in Every Classroom
BATON ROUGE, LA 鈥� In a victory for religious freedom, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction today in Rev. Roake v. Brumley, prohibiting implementation of a Louisiana law that requires all public schools to permanently display a government-approved, Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. In the ruling, Judge John W. DeGravelles determined that Louisiana鈥檚 H.B. 71, enacted last June, violates the First Amendment and longstanding Supreme Court precedent. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court overturned a similar state statute, holding that the First Amendment bars public schools from posting such displays. The defendants conceded during oral argument that Stone remains good law and is binding on lower courts. In his 177-page opinion, the judge explained: [T]hese displays must be posted in every 鈥渃lassroom in each school,鈥� all year round, regardless of subject matter, and regardless of the age of the student. Thus, the question is not whether the Biblical laws can ever be put on a poster; the issue is whether, as a matter of law, there is any constitutional way to display the Ten Commandments in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Act. In short, the Court finds that there is not. First, Stone remains good law and is directly on point, and this Court is bound to follow it. Second, even putting Stone aside . . . , Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that H.B. 71 fails to comply with the Establishment Clause analysis laid out in Kennedy and Fifth Circuit precedent. Judge DeGravelles also recognized that H.B. 71 would lead to unconstitutional religious coercion of the children-plaintiffs in the case by imposing religious doctrine on them for nearly every hour of the school day, throughout their entire public-school education. And, pointing to the testimony of plaintiffs鈥� expert, Dr. Steven K. Green, the court found that there is no historical support for permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms and that doing so would be at odds with our nation鈥檚 Founders鈥� understanding of the separation of church and state. The court鈥檚 opinion concludes: Each of the Plaintiffs鈥� minor children will be forced 鈥渋n every practical sense,鈥� through Louisiana鈥檚 required attendance policy, to be a 鈥渃aptive audience鈥� and to participate in a religious exercise: reading and considering a specific version of the Ten Commandments, one posted in every single classroom, for the entire school year, regardless of the age of the student or subject matter of the course. And, despite the differences among the Plaintiffs鈥� religious beliefs (be they Unitarian Universalist, Reform Jewish, Presbyterian, or atheist/agnostic), the common threads are (1) that the required posting of the Decalogue conflicts with specific parts of their faith, and (2) that one of those articles of faith, shared by nearly all Plaintiff parents, is raising their children in accordance with their own beliefs and values. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Act and its requirements are coercive and inconsistent with the history of First Amendment and public education. The court further ruled that H.B. 71 also violates the plaintiffs鈥� rights under the Free Exercise Clause. After finding that the law violates the plaintiffs鈥� constitutional rights, the court prohibited the defendants from 鈥�(1) enforcing H.B. 71; (2) adopting rules or regulations for the enforcement of H.B. 71; and (3) requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in every public-school classroom in Louisiana in accordance with H.B. 71.鈥� The Court additionally directed the state defendants to provide notice of its order and H.B. 71鈥檚 unconstitutionality to all Louisiana public elementary, secondary, and charter schools, and all public post-secondary education institutions. Because the court denied the defendants鈥� request to pause (or 鈥渟tay鈥�) the preliminary injunction while they seek relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it immediately takes effect. 鈥淗.B. 71 is a direct infringement of our religious-freedom rights, and we鈥檙e pleased and relieved that the court ruled in our favor,鈥� said Rev. Darcy Roake, who is a plaintiff in the case along with her husband, Adrian Van Young. 鈥淎s an interfaith family, we expect our children to receive their secular education in public school and their religious education at home and within our faith communities, not from government officials.鈥� 鈥淭his ruling should serve as a reality check for Louisiana lawmakers who want to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity,鈥� said Heather L. Weaver, Senior Staff Attorney for the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淧ublic schools are not Sunday schools, and today鈥檚 decision ensures that our clients鈥� classrooms will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed.鈥� 鈥淲e are pleased that the First Amendment rights of students and families are protected by this vital court decision,鈥� said Patrick Elliott, Legal Director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 鈥淭his ruling will ensure that Louisiana families 鈥� not politicians or public school officials 鈥� get to decide if, when and how their children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淚t should send a strong message to Christian Nationalists across the country that they cannot impose their beliefs on our nation鈥檚 public school children. Not on our watch.鈥� 鈥淩eligious freedom鈥攖he right to choose one鈥檚 faith without pressure鈥攊s essential to American democracy,鈥� said Alanah Odoms, Executive Director of the 老澳门开奖结果 of Louisiana. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling ensures that the schools our plaintiff鈥檚 children attend will stay focused on learning, without promoting a state-preferred version of Christianity.鈥� Jon Youngwood, Co-Chair of Simpson Thacher鈥檚 Litigation Department, added, 鈥淲e are heartened by the District Court鈥檚 well-reasoned and detailed opinion, which rests upon the wisdom of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the protections it affords regarding the separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion.鈥� Represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel, the plaintiffs in Roake v. Brumley are a multifaith group of nine Louisiana families with children in public schools. Today鈥檚 opinion, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, is available online here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/11/LA-10c-Opinion.pdf