government entanglement” with religion. Nonetheless,
the case would be remanded to District Court for a
determination of whether the Act violated the
Establishment Clause “as applied.”
United States v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987).
Individuals fired from their job with church-owned
corporations for failure to qualify as church members
brought action for religious discrimination. The
Supreme court held that application of the religious
exemption of Title VII’s prohibition against religious
discrimination in employment to secular nonprofit
activities of religious organization did not violate the
Establishment Clause.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). Action
was brought challenging constitutionality of Louisiana
Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-
Science in Public School Instruction Act. The Supreme
Court held that: (1) Act serves no identified secular
purpose; and (2) Act has as its primary purpose the
promotion of a particular religious belief and is thus
unconstitutional.
Ran-Dav’s County Kosher, Inc. v. State, 129 N.J. 141
(1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 952 (1993). Purveyors of
kosher foods challenged New Jersey’s kosher regulations.
The Supreme Court held that regulations violated
Establishment Clauses of Federal and State Constitu-
tions by imposing substantive religious standards for
kosher products industry and authorizing civil
enforcement of those standards with assistance of clergy.
Marsa v. Wernik, 86 N.J. 232 (1981). Action was
brought challenging constitutionality of practice of a
nondenominational invocation or silent meditation at
start of regular meetings of borough counsel. Held: The
procedure followed, i.e., having a particular council
member call for a silent meditation or deliver an
invocation, the content of which was selected by that
council person, did not violate the Establishment Clause.
V. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
Pursuant to the First Amendment, Congress shall
make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization,
493 U.S. 378 (1990). Religious organization brought
action seeking refund of sales and use taxes paid under
protest. The Supreme Court held that collection and
payment of generally applicable sales and use tax did not
impose constitutionally significant burden on
organization’s religious practices or beliefs, and thus, the
Free Exercise Clause did not require state to grant
organization a tax exemption.Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security,
489 U.S. 829 (1989). State’s denial of unemployment
benefits to worker who refused position because job
would have required him to work on Sunday violated the
Free Exercise Clause.Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Commission of
Florida, 480 U.S. 136 (1987). A claimant, who was
discharged when she refused to work on her Sabbath,
sought recovery of unemployment compensation
benefits. Held: Florida’s refusal to award unemployment
compensation benefits violated the Free Exercise Clause.Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v.
Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). The Free Exercise Clause
did not prohibit application of state drug laws to
claimants’ ceremonial ingestion of peyote, and, thus,
state could deny claimants’ unemployment compensa-
tion for work-related misconduct based on their use of the
drug.Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n,
485 U.S. 439 (1988). Suit to preclude Forest Service
from permitting timber harvesting and road construction
in area of national forest that was traditionally used for
religious purposes by members of three American Indian
tribes. Held: The Free Exercise Clause did not prohibit
government from permitting timber harvesting and road
construction in area in question.O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987).
State prison inmates brought civil rights suit challenging
certain prison regulations as violative of their First
Amendment rights. The Supreme Court held that: (1)
separate burden should not have been placed on prison
officials to prove that no reasonable method existed by
which inmates’ religious rights could be accommodated
without creating bona fide security problems; and (2)
prison officials had acted in reasonable manner by
precluding Islamic inmates from attending weekly
Friday religious service and prison regulations to that
effect thus did not violate Free Exercise Clause.Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986).
Serviceman, an Orthodox Jew and ordained rabbi,
brought suit against Secretary of Defense and others,
claiming that application of air force regulation to
prevent him from wearing his yarmulke infringed upon