Gov/pol Dec.5

Front 1

Walker

Back 1

Facts: Civil rights activists planned a march for Good Friday and Easter Sunday in Birmingham, Alabama. The city denied them parade permits. When the city discovered the protesters intended to march anyway, they obtained an injunction. Anyone who disobeyed was arrested.
Issue: Did the injunction obtained by the city of Birmingham violate the right to assembly guaranteed under the First Amendment?
Decision: The Supreme Court voted 5 for Birmingham and 4 against. The Court decided that while the injunction may have been unconstitutional, the protest was in fact illegal.
Reasoning: 1. The injunction was obtained lawfully through the state court of Alabama.
2. The protesters did not challenge the injunction through the proper legal paths.
3. Although the injunction was “vague” and may have been unconstitutional, the protesting was illegal. Stewart remarks, "no man can be judge in his own case . . . however righteous his motives."
Rule of Law: When an injunction is granted, it becomes law and should not be broken. However, any injunction can be challenged through the proper legal paths. No citizen has the right to break the law, no matter how unjust.

Front 2

Lemon

Back 2

Facts: The case was decided simultaneously with Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DiCenso in 1971. Rhode Island and Pennsylvania had resources, including funding, to “church-related educational institutions”. In Pennsylvania, the law provided teacher salaries and materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. In Rhode Island, the state would supplement teacher salaries in non-public schools.
Issue: Did Rhode Island and Pennsylvania violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, which guarantees that the government will not give preferential treatment to inhibit any religion?
Decision: Yes; The Supreme Court votes unanimously with 8 for Lemon and 0 against. The Court held that aiding religious schools put the state in a position of co-dependence with a religious institution. Funding religious schools that have the clear purpose of spreading a specific religion is against the constitution.
Reasoning: The Court used the “Lemon Test” to rule in this case. Which states...
1. “The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3.The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.”
The Court found Rhode Island and Pennsylvania primarily at fault with the second and third parts of the test. The funding was mainly circulated to Roman Catholic schools which were integral in the church’s mission to spread Catholicism. The Court found that the church and the state governments were too closely bound to each other.
Rule of Law: The government of the state’s must not have any bearing on religion. The government may not assist in the expansion of prohibition of religion nor shall it become involved in church affairs.

Front 3

Lynch

Back 3

Facts: Pawtucket, Rhode Island set up a Christmas display, which included a Santa Claus, Christmas tree, “Seasons Greeting” sign, and nativity set annually. Daniel Donnelly to offense to the display and sued the mayor of the town, Dennis Lynch. The District Court of Rhode Island ruled against Pawtucket and prohibited them from setting up the display. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the conviction. Appealed to the Supreme Court by writ of cert.
Issue: Did the city's display violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by showing preferential treatment to a specific religion?
Decision: No; The Supreme Court voted 5 for Lynch and 4 against. The Court held that despite the religious implication of the display, the city had not dishonored the Establishment Clause.
Reasoning: Using the Lemon Test the court ruled that the city had only passively demonstrated religious views and that there was not enough evidence to confirm advancement or prohibition of religion. The constitution provides accommodation and tolerance of religion, and condemns hostility. The display celebrated the origins of the season in a secular purpose. It had been there for 40 years without being divisive or problematic. Pawtucket was not giving preferential treatment to the church establishment in any way.
Rule of Law: A city’s inclusion of a crèche in a seasonal display is not an infringement of the Establishment Clause but merely recognition of the existence of religion. Just as many institutions recognize the holiday season with breaks and days off.