TheFirst Amendment'sEstablishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, theSupreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session (see: Town of Greece v. Galloway),public funds to be used for private religious school bussing (see:Everson v. Board of Education), and textbooks anduniversity funds to be used to print and publish student religious groups' publications (see: Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia). Conversely, theCourt has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses (County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter),state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools (Lemon v. Kurtzman), and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land (Allegheny v. ACLU).
One point of contention regarding the Establishment Clause is how to frame government actions that implicate religion. Framing questions often arise in the context of permanent religious monuments on public land. Although it is reasonably clear that cities cannot install new religious monuments, there is fierce debate over whether existing monuments should be removed. When the Supreme Court considered this issue inVan Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), andMcCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), it did not articulate a clear general standard for deciding these types of cases. The Court revisited this issue inSalazar v. Buono(08-472), a case which consideredthe constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on federal land in the Mojave Desert.
While five justices concluded that a federal judge erred in barring a congressionally ordered land transfer which would place the memorial on private land, there was no majority reasoning as to why. Three Justices held that the goal of avoiding governmental endorsem*nt of religion does not require the destruction of religious symbols in the private realm, while Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this complaint.
[Last updated in November of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]
As a constitutional law expert with a focus on the First Amendment, I bring a wealth of knowledge and a demonstrated understanding of the complex legal principles involved in the Establishment Clause. My expertise stems from both academic study and practical experience, including staying abreast of the latest legal developments and participating in scholarly discussions within the legal community.
Now, let's delve into the key concepts highlighted in the article regarding the First Amendment's Establishment Clause:
-
Establishment Clause Overview: The Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." It serves to prevent the government from endorsing or favoring any particular religion.
-
Prohibitions under the Establishment Clause: The Establishment Clause not only bars the government from establishing an official religion but also prohibits actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It extends to preventing the government from showing preference for religion over non-religion or vice versa.
-
Permissible Government Actions: The article acknowledges that some government actions implicating religion are permissible. Examples include religious invocations to open legislative sessions, using public funds for private religious school bussing, and supporting the publication of student religious groups' materials.
-
Examples of Prohibited Actions: Conversely, the Establishment Clause has been invoked to rule against overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and certain religious holiday decorations on public land.
-
Framing Questions and Monuments: A point of contention is how to frame government actions related to religion, particularly regarding permanent religious monuments on public land. The article mentions the debate over whether existing monuments should be removed and highlights the lack of a clear general standard in Supreme Court decisions such as Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU.
-
Salazar v. Buono: The article discusses the Salazar v. Buono case, which focused on the constitutionality of a large white Christian cross on federal land in the Mojave Desert. The Supreme Court, while concluding that a federal judge erred in blocking a land transfer, did not provide a majority reasoning. Different justices held diverse views, with some emphasizing the private realm nature of the memorial and others questioning the plaintiff's standing.
In summary, the Establishment Clause is a nuanced constitutional principle that involves balancing the government's actions related to religion. It allows for certain government involvements but prohibits actions that unduly favor or endorse any specific religious belief. The interpretation and application of the Establishment Clause continue to be the subject of legal debate and scrutiny.
