example of a supreme court ruling that limits free exercise of religion
Human rights in the United States


the right to remain silent." The establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. The clause was used to limit school praying, beginning with "Engel v. Vitale", which ruled government-led prayer unconstitutional. "Wallace v. Jaffree" banned moments of silence allocated for praying. The Supreme Court also ruled clergy-led prayer at public high school graduations unconstitutional with "Lee v. Weisman". The free exercise clause guarantees the free exercise
21936233
Freedom of religion in the United States


"Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in "Reynolds v. United States" (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law
3735854
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n


Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the applicability of the Free Exercise Clause to the practice of religion on Native American sacred lands, specifically in the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. This area, also known as the High Country, was used by the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa tribes as a religious site. The ruling is considered a key example of judicial restraint by the Supreme
7573847
Free Exercise Clause


" that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited the Free Exercise Clause in "Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah". Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter of Judaism. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling
19842401
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission


the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality. In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to
1523314
Abortion in California


1984, U.S. Supreme Court justice William Rehnquist refused to turn over the state appeals court ruling allowing the religious ceremonies. This was officially upheld by the Supreme Court in March 1985. CPCs and the Pacific Justice Institute filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Reproductive FACT Act. The CPCs asserted that the law's requirements constituted compelled speech in violation of their rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. Among these was a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by the
14797059
Sherbert v. Verner


a state trial court and the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision reversed the Commission and the lower courts, finding that, as applied, the government's denial of Sherbert's claim was an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion. The majority opinion effectively created the "Sherbert" Test, determining whether government action runs afoul of the Free Exercise Clause. Brennan, writing for the majority, stated that denial of Sherbert's unemployment claim represented a substantial burden upon her. Even
13288151
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights


enumerates, by amendment and individual clause, the Supreme Court cases that have incorporated the rights contained in the Bill of Rights. (The Ninth Amendment is not listed; its wording indicates that it "is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." The Tenth Amendment is also not listed; by its wording, it is a reservation of powers to the states and to the people.) Guarantee against establishment of religion Guarantee of free exercise of religion Guarantee of
11033745
Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance


official religion, but is free to support all religions in general (as long as it shows none of them preference above the others), Justice Bookstein listed several examples felt to support that interpretation. These included Supreme Court rulings such as the 1892 "Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States" which stated "this is a religious nation", and the 1952 ruling "Zorach v. Clauson" which stated "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Bookstein also cited wording in the Declaration of
20608543
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990


." As nearly all firearms have moved in interstate commerce at some point in their existence, critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the original Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in "United States v. Lopez", 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause
12853645
Freedom of religion in the Philippines


" (Article III, Section 5)... The Supreme Court of the Philippines, ruling in 2003 and 2006 in the landmark case of "Estrada vs. Escritor", established the doctrine of benevolent neutrality-accommodation. The 2006 ruling, penned by former Chief Justice Puno, explained benevolent-neutrality in the context of U.S. jurisprudence as follows: The ruling went on to cite a U.S. Supreme Court decision which had held that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision,
16283874
Human rights in the United States


of religion. The Supreme Court's "Lemon v. Kurtzman" decision established the "Lemon test" exception, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. In the "Employment Division v. Smith" decision, the Supreme Court maintained a "neutral law of general applicability" can be used to limit religion exercises. In the "City of Boerne v. Flores" decision, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was struck down as exceeding congressional power; however, the decision's effect is limited by the "Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita
21936234
Free Exercise Clause


, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote." The Supreme Court did not rule that the Pledge was unconstitutional; rather, they held that students may not be compelled to recite it. The Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause. In, "Sherbert v. Verner" (1963) the Court held that states must have a "compelling interest" to refuse to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. The
19842399
Freedom of religion in the United States


that were to be accorded free speech, the free press and free exercise of religion. In addition, the cases marked the emergence of individual rights as an issue within the U.S. court system. Before the Jehovah's Witnesses brought several dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1930s and 1940s, the Court had handled few cases contesting laws that restricted freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Until then, the First Amendment had only been applied to Congress and the federal government. However, the cases brought before the Court
3735869
City of Boerne v. Flores


authorities denied the permit, citing an ordinance governing additions and new construction in a historic district. The Archbishop brought suit, challenging the ruling under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Flores argued that his congregation had outgrown the existing structure, rendering the ruling a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion without a compelling state interest. RFRA had been crafted as a direct response to the Supreme Court's decision in "Employment Division v. Smith", when the Court had upheld, against a First Amendment challenge
19079187
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson


the press," "that it is invalid under the same Amendment as a violation of the guaranty of separate church and state and as a prohibition of the free exercise of religion," and "that the term 'sacrilegious' is so vague and indefinite as to offend due process." The Board's decision was upheld by the New York state courts, including the New York Court of Appeals. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision in 1952 brought films under the free speech and free
8960750
Free Exercise Clause


the application of the Free Exercise Clause. Subsequently, the Warren Court adopted an expansive view of the clause, the "compelling interest" doctrine (whereby a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities), but later decisions have reduced the scope of this interpretation. The history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause follows a broad arc, beginning with approximately 100 years of little attention, then taking on a relatively narrow view of the governmental restrictions required under the clause, growing into
19842389
Separation of church and state in the United States


an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum
18037994
Supreme Court of the United States


interstate commerce. For example, the Commerce Clause was used by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the Endangered Species Act, thus protecting six endemic species of insect near Austin, Texas, despite the fact that the insects had no commercial value and did not travel across state lines; the Supreme Court let that ruling stand without comment in 2005. Chief Justice John Marshall asserted Congress's power over interstate commerce was "complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are
13127924
Free Exercise Clause


case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In "Wisconsin v. Yoder" (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional. The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in "Employment Division v. Smith
19842400
Havre de Grace, Maryland


Creole de Graw"). At the end of the 1950s, the state removed the horse track, and its race and betting rights were bought by the Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore. An incident during 1949, when the city denied a license to use a city park and arrested a Jehovah's Witnesses preacher, led to the US Supreme Court case of "Niemotko v. Maryland" (1951). The court ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses were protected by constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion and the city should have
21924222
History of religion in the United States


of Rights, this was the only mention of religious freedom in the Constitution. The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine. On August 15, 1789 Madison said, "he apprehended the meaning of the words to
18966566
Establishment Clause


incorporating the two Religion Clauses in the First Amendment was twofold. The first step was the Supreme Court's conclusion in 1940 that the Free Exercise Clause was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Conceptually, this raised few difficulties: the Due Process Clause protects those rights in the Bill of Rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," and free exercise of religion is a quintessential individual right (and had been recognized as such at the state level from the beginning). Incorporation of the Establishment Clause in
19842142
Arizona SB 1062


's exercise of religion". When the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the RFRA was inapplicable to state laws, some states passed their own Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, including the Arizona law that SB 1062 proposed to amend. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal RFRA as applied to federal statutes in "Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal" in 2006. Arizona lawmakers were concerned about a 2013 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that weakened its state's RFRA, which was passed as a religious exemption to
7975140
America: Freedom to Fascism


and not that Supreme Court decisions in general are irrelevant. In the film, it is stated: On August 31, 2005 federal judge Emmet Sullivan ruled the government does not have to answer the American people's questions, even though it is guaranteed in the First Amendment. The text of the first amendment is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
2011702
LeVake v. Independent School District 656


rights to free exercise of religion, free speech, procedural due process, freedom of conscience, and academic freedom. The district court granted summary judgment for the school district, and on appeal the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment, finding that the record showed that the teacher "refused to teach his assigned class in the manner prescribed by the established curriculum" and that summary judgment was appropriate as he had not shown a violation of his rights. LeVake sought further review by the Minnesota Supreme Court and then by the Supreme
13076794
History of religion in the United States


, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." In a letter written in 1802, Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "separation of church and state" to describe the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Though "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court. Robert N. Bellah has argued in his
18966560
Sacrilege


is an injury to persons or property. In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court case "Burstyn v. Wilson" (1952) struck down a statute against sacrilege, ruling that the term could not be narrowly defined in a way that would safeguard against the establishment of one church over another and that such statutes infringed upon the free exercise of religion and freedom of expression. Despite their decriminalisation, sacrilegious acts are still sometimes regarded with strong disapproval by the public, even by nominal or former members and non-adherents of
11679911
Sherbert v. Verner


burden on the free exercise of his or her religion. However, four years later, the court struck down RFRA as applied to Constitutional interpretation. In "City of Boerne v. Flores," 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the court found that RFRA, as applied to the states, exceeded Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the ruling did not necessarily limit RFRA's effect on interpretation of federal statutes. Using a parliamentary procedure known as "unanimous consent", both the House and the
13288157
Religious discrimination


services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom". However, cases of religious discrimination might also be the result of an interference of the religious sphere with other spheres of the public that are regulated by law. Although e.g. in the United States the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"", in "Reynolds v. United States" the U.S. supreme court decided that
15101957
LGBT rights in Canada


The entire Charter is also subject to a general exception in section 1 that allows "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The Oakes Test sets out the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of this exception. This analysis may consider conflicting Charter rights. For example, the right to equality based on sexual orientation under section 15 may be limited by the freedom of religion under section 2, and vice versa. It may also be limited by the right to denominational (
3385827
Hobby Lobby


of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Oral arguments in the case, then known as "Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby," were heard on March 25, 2014. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Hobby Lobby and other "closely held" stock corporations can choose to be exempt from the law based on religious preferences, based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
2359739
Adfin v Durable Engineering Works


of combined summons. The Supreme Court, noted Berman J, was free to condone non-compliance with a Rule of Court. It was also free to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to ensure that justice was done. Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court, which provides, "inter alia", that proceedings on review "shall be by way of notice of motion," is a procedural provision, formulated for the benefit and assistance of a person aggrieved by a decision of a
10278637
Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny


rule 28 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986.” The Supreme Court went on to note that the underlying basis of that jurisdiction stems from the court’s “inherent entitlement to prevent an abuse of process.” However, the Supreme Court also noted that the jurisdiction to strike out proceedings as being bound to fail is to be exercised sparingly and is only intended to deal with the “slam dunk” situations where it is clear that the proceedings are bound to fail. The default position in respect of any proceedings is
18757565
Free Exercise Clause


The Court said: "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices." Jehovah's Witnesses were often the target of such restriction. Several cases involving the Witnesses gave the Court the opportunity to rule on
19842388
Alfred Leo Smith


right to exercise their religion. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed, although it relied not on the fact that peyote use was a crime but on the fact that the state's justification for withholding the benefits—preserving the "financial integrity" of the workers' compensation fund—was outweighed by the burden imposed on the employees' exercise of their religion. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, again arguing that denying the unemployment benefits was proper because possession of peyote was a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court let stand the
4261613
Freedom of religion in Sri Lanka


Freedom of religion in Sri Lanka is a protected right under Chapter II, Article 9 of the constitution of Sri Lanka. This applies to all religions, though Buddhism is given primary protection as the state religion. Buddhism was given the foremost place by President J. R. Jayawardene in 1978, though Sri Lanka is regarded by its Supreme Court as being a secular country. Limitations on proselytism were outlined by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in 2018, with the ruling against a Catholic organisation stating that the provision of economic and financial support
14949507
School prayer in the United States


) is known as the Free Exercise Clause. Though each of these clauses originally applied only to the central US government, the Fourteenth Amendment extended the scope of the entire First Amendment to all levels of government, including the state and local levels, thus compelling states and their public schools to adopt an equally detached approach to religion in schools. Since 1962, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that prayers in public schools are unconstitutional. Social conservatives have been unable to pass a constitutional amendment through Congress that would change that. It
10952397
Minerva Mills v. Union of India


Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India. In the "Minerva Mills" case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The court unanimously ruled that the power of the parliament to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant
12316273
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission


trait,' played in the denial of service". The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise. Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion. Kennedy stated that "[t]he outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await
1523335
Freedom of religion in Canada


v. Edwards Books and Art", the Supreme Court found that legislation prohibiting Sunday shopping with the secular purpose of creating a day of rest was also a violation of freedom of religion because of the unequal effect of the law on retailers who observed a different sabbath. However, this violation was upheld as a justifiable limit on freedom of religion. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that there is a duty to accommodate religious observance under human rights legislation. The 1990 case Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta concerned an employee who was
10566134
History of religion in the United States


states passed these laws after 1913. In 1960, 42 per cent of school districts nationwide tolerated or required Bible reading, and 50 per cent reported some form of homeroom daily devotional exercise. Since 1962, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that prayers organized by public school officials schools are unconstitutional. Students are allowed to pray privately, and to join religious clubs after school hours. Colleges, universities, and private schools are not affected by the Supreme Court rulings. Reactions to "Engel" and "Abington" were widely negative
18966569
Supreme Court of Nepal


authorized the Supreme Court to make rules relating to the Supreme Court, while section 31 of the Administration of Justice Act has empowered it to make rules relating to the Court of Appeal and the District Courts. Under the said statutory authority the Supreme Court has issued the Supreme Court Rules and Court of Appeal Rules in 1991 and the District Court Rules in 1995. Rule making power is exercised by the Full Court of the Supreme Court. Full Court is the principal policy making body of the Indian judiciary which consist of all the justices
15606043
Separation of powers under the United States Constitution


circuit over which the court has jurisdiction. The power to review the constitutionality of laws may be limited by Congress, which has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts. The only constitutional limit on Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of the judiciary relates to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving states and cases affecting foreign ambassadors, ministers or consuls. The Chief Justice presides in the Senate during a president's impeachment trial. The rules of the Senate, however,
19761112
Bob Ferguson (politician)


2015, Stutzman stated she would appeal the ruling. On March 27, 2015, Judge Ekstrom ordered Stutzman to pay a $1,000 fine, plus $1 for court costs and fees. On November 15, 2016, Ferguson personally argued at the Washington Supreme Court hearing, which was held before an audience in Bellevue College's auditorium. On February 16, 2017, the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the florist. In the court's opinion, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud wrote neither the U.S. Constitution's Free Exercise Clause nor
13650915
American Indian Religious Freedom Act


the agency for the same reason. When denied unemployment compensation, Smith and his co-worker challenged the grounds of their terminations. Smith took his case to the Oregon courts, which ruled in his favor of protected use of peyote under the free-exercise clause of AIRFA. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case, and overturned the Oregon court ruling. The Supreme Court stated that they could in fact be denied unemployment benefits because by using peyote they were in violation of state criminal law. The "Smith" decision prompted
2960220
Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses by country


60% tax levied on all donations received from 1993–1996. The Court found that the tax assessment represented a cut in the association's operating resources sufficient to interfere with the free exercise of its members' religion in practical terms. By 2011, the Government of France sought the Association to pay a sum of 58 million Euros. A representative of Jehovah's Witnesses in France stated that "no other major religion in France was subjected to this tax" and that "the Court saw that this was not a legitimate effort to collect
331436
King & King


Lynch, writing for the court, rejected the plaintiff's argument that their religious beliefs were being singled out as well as their argument that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was violated, writing, "There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that [the second-grader] was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights." The court also ruled that the parents' substantive due process rights were not violated
13876948
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act


mandate covering contraception and sterilization and HHS's narrow definition of a religious organization violated the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and conscience. Various lawsuits addressed these concerns. On June 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal subsidies for health insurance premiums could be used in the 34 states that did not set up their own insurance exchanges. In "United States House of Representatives v. Price" (previously "United States House of Representatives v. Burwell") the House sued the administration alleging that the money
9602068
Free Exercise Clause


. The Council was to grant the certificate only if the organization requesting it was a charity or sponsored a religious cause. The Supreme Court ruled that any law granting a public body the function of determining if a cause is religious or not violates the First Amendment. In 1940, the Supreme Court decided in "Minersville School District v. Gobitis" that members of the Jehovah's Witnesses in a school could be required to salute the flag. The ruling in "Gobitis", however, did not stand for long. In 1943
19842397
Boston Massachusetts Temple


said the temple work would commence with or without a steeple. His optimism was rewarded when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of the church the following May. Previously, a judge had ruled that the building's steeple was not a "necessary element of the Mormon religion." Therefore, under the law the building height limit could be enforced. But the Supreme Court overruled the earlier ruling saying, "A rose window at Notre Dame Cathedral, a balcony at St. Peter's Basilica, are judges to decide whether these
2560904
Americans


; Spanish is an official language of Puerto Rico. Religion in the United States has a high adherence level compared to other developed countries, as well as a diversity in beliefs. The First Amendment to the country's Constitution prevents the Federal government from making any "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this as preventing the government from having any authority in religion. A majority of Americans report that religion plays a "very important" role in their lives
17222579
Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary


whether the display of a privately sponsored nativity scene, a religious symbol, on public land was a violation of the separation of church and state laid out in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. This protection against the establishment of religion was balanced against the First Amendment protections of free speech and free exercise of religion. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on February 20, 1985 and a decision was announced on March 27, 1985. Justice Powell did not partake in the consideration and decision of the
5134487
Reference Re Secession of Quebec


." The Supreme Court of Canada's opinion stated that the right of a people to self-determination was expected to be exercised within the framework of existing states, by negotiation, for example. Such a right could only be exercised unilaterally under certain circumstances, under current international law. The court held that: and that The court stated in its opinion that under international law, the right to secede was meant for peoples under a colonial rule or foreign occupation. Otherwise, so long as a people has the meaningful exercise
10809045
Robert Muise


, C-SPAN broadcast the oral arguments. On September 13, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the summary judgment and ruled that the school district did not violate Johnson's free speech rights. The unanimous decision of the federal appeals court relied on U.S. Supreme Court rulings that said governments can limit the free speech rights of public employees in the workplace. Nevertheless, Muise has appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2008, Muise, along with co-counsel David Yerushalmi, filed a federal lawsuit
21486116
Cantwell v. Connecticut


order and comfort of the community, without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Before the "Cantwell" decision, it was not legally clear that the First Amendment protected religious practitioners against restrictions at the state and local levels as well as federal. But the Supreme Court in "Cantwell" said it did, thereby ushering in an era of greatly strengthened religious freedom. This case incorporated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, thereby applying it to the states and protecting free exercise of religion from intrusive state action
21982191
Marital rape


states that there is no crime if an act is committed while exercising a legal right. Examples of legal rights include: "The punishment of a wife by her husband, the disciplining by parents and teachers of children under their authority within certain limits prescribed by law or by custom". In 2010, the United Arab Emirates's Supreme Court ruled that a man has the right to physically discipline his wife and children as long as he does not leave physical marks. Although most research is focused on wives as victims of marital
16891130
Free Exercise Clause


The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read: In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in "Reynolds v. United States", as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice.
19842387
Alfred Leo Smith


Oregon Supreme Court's judgment against the two employees and returned the case to the Oregon courts to determine whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon's state drug laws (485 U.S. 660 (1988)). Writing for the majority, Antonin Scalia declared that the free exercise of religion did not protect minority religions from "neutral, generally applicable laws." Scalia believed that "...[l]eaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in, but that
4261614
Sherbert v. Verner


Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted with her religion. The case established the "Sherbert" Test, requiring demonstration of such a compelling interest and narrow tailoring in all Free Exercise cases in which a religious person
13288145
Free Exercise Clause


" (1997) the Court struck down as exceeding Congress's powers those provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment. Thus, state and local government actions that are facially neutral toward religion are judged by the "Employment Division v. Smith" standard rather than RFRA. According to the court's ruling in "Gonzales v. UDV" (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise
19842403
Fred Phelps


similar lawsuit. In the case of "Snyder v. Phelps", the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "distasteful and repugnant" protests surrounding funerals of service members were protected by the First Amendment. But attorneys for the service member's family appealed the decision on the grounds that such speech should not be allowed to inflict emotional distress on private parties exercising their freedom of religion during a funeral service. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on October 6, 2010 and ruled 8–1 in favor of Phelps in an
1455386
Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity


when that action implicates action, not belief. Law professor R. Kent Greenawalt argues against the court's ruling saying that religious individuals often subject themselves to conditions that may be psychologically harmful, that the defendants did know the identity of the group they were joining, and that courts would rule differently if a more established religion (he uses the Roman Catholic Church as an example) were involved. The defendants appealed to the United States Supreme Court which refused to review the decision of the California Supreme Court, and the case was settled
3519034
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms


argument). Religious freedom was later included in the "Canadian Bill of Rights". However, its effectiveness was limited. When Sunday closing laws compelling respect for the Christian Sabbath were challenged in "R v Robertson and Rosetanni", Justice Ritchie of the Supreme Court found that non-Christians merely lost money when denied rights to work on Sunday and were otherwise free to believe in and observe their own religions. Freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the "Charter" was first seriously considered by the Supreme Court in
152800
History of religion in the United States


has been very rapid. During the World War II, Jehovah's Witnesses experienced mob attacks in America and were temporarily banned in Canada and Australia because of their lack of support for the war effort. They won significant Supreme Court victories involving the rights of free speech and religion that have had a great impact on legal interpretation of these rights for others. In 1943, the United States Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette that school children of Jehovah's Witnesses could not be compelled to salute the flag
18966535
Supreme Court of the United States


United States v. Nixon" (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes. Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling. Supreme Court decisions can be (and have been) purposefully overturned by constitutional amendment, which has happened on five occasions: When the Court rules on matters involving the interpretation of laws rather than of the Constitution, simple legislative action can reverse the decisions (for example, in 2009 Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter act, superseding the limitations given in "Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
13127900
Employment Division v. Smith


, holding that denying them unemployment benefits for their religious use of peyote violated their right to exercise their religion. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed, although it relied not on the fact that peyote use was a crime but on the fact that the state's justification for withholding the benefits—preserving the "financial integrity" of the workers' compensation fund—was outweighed by the burden imposed on the employees' exercise of their religion. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, again arguing that denying the unemployment benefits was proper
419670
Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms


argued that section 27 should receive "significance" from the courts, and that the section could reinforce freedom of religion (section 2). As this court put it, if a law limits the free exercise of religion, then the law is also of no use in promoting multiculturalism, since it affects a "part of one's culture which is religiously based." Hence, section 27 demands that governments must respect and tolerate various religions, even if this means that some cultural groups may be exempted from certain things the
6342130
Secular movement


, which advocates for more prayer and religion in American government. As America's secular demographic has grown and become more visible and active, a number of lawsuits have been brought to challenge references to God and religion in government. These cases have had limited success. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. That ruling was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in "Elk Grove Unified
5448319
Discretionary jurisdiction


lower courts, while it focuses its limited resources on developing case law properly. In the latter situation, the appellate court will focus on truly novel questions or revisiting older legal rules that are now clearly obsolete or unconstitutional. For example, the United States Supreme Court hears cases by a writ of certiorari, essentially meaning that it calls appellants up to the court only if their case is important enough to merit the resources of the court. The Supreme Court employs a "rule of four", meaning that four justices have to
4494293
Zubik v. Burwell


] a person's exercise of religion". The RFRA was amended in 2000 by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to redefine "exercise of religion" as any exercise of religion, "whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief", which is to be "construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution". The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RFRA as
7257043
Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich


the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court stating that that court had overstepped its bounds in deciding issues related to ecclesiastical and political intra-church matters. The holding by the Illinois Supreme Court was in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments which prohibit secular legal interference in rulings determined by hierarchical religious tribunals. According to the First Amendment as described in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, decisions made by the church must be accepted as binding by civil courts. The defrockment of clergy directly corresponded to assets held by the church as the
9718816
Y. V. Chandrachud


has been widely acclaimed for his dissent. In the "Minerva Mills" case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic structure doctrine. The court unanimously ruled that the power of the Parliament of India to amend the constitution is limited by the constitution. Hence the parliament cannot exercise this limited power to grant itself an unlimited power. In addition, a majority of the court also held that the parliament's power to amend is not a power to destroy. Hence the parliament cannot emasculate the
14316500
First Amendment to the United States Constitution


seditious libel. Madison believed that legislation to be unconstitutional, and his adversaries in that dispute, such as John Marshall, advocated the narrow freedom of speech that had existed in the English common law. The Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of any federal law regarding the Free Speech Clause until the 20th century. For example, the Supreme Court never ruled on the Alien and Sedition Acts; three Supreme Court justices riding circuit presided over sedition trials without indicating any reservations. The leading critics of the law, Vice President
12968489
Establishment Clause


"Lee v. Weisman" (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attending ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In "Lee" the Court developed the coercion test. Under this test the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it (1) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or (2
19842157
Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria


The Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria was first established on 25 November 1878 as one of the three divisions of the then-single Supreme Court. It did not exist during the Communist rule, but was restored in 1991. The purpose of the Court is outlined in the Constitution: " "Article 125 (1) The Supreme Administrative Court shall exercise supreme judicial oversight as to the precise and equal application of the law in administrative justice. (2) The Supreme Administrative Court shall rule on all challenges to the legality of acts
19335243
Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary


the Scarsdale Board of Trustees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that the Board's withdrawal of permission to display the nativity scene in the park was a violation of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and free exercise of religion. Judge Charles E. Stewart, Jr. ruled on December 8, 1983 in the case of "McCreary v. Stone" that the display of the nativity scene did, indeed, constitute an impermissible establishment of religion, stating that "when a symbol is left on
5134484
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965


limited recent efforts at immigration restriction. In January 2017, President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769 temporarily halted immigration from seven majority-Muslim nations. However, lower federal courts ruled that the Executive Order violated the INA's prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of nationality and religion. In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court overrode both appeals courts and allowed the second ban to go into effect, but carved out an exemption for persons with "bona fide relationships" in the U.S. In December 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed
17943125
Supreme Court of the Philippines


further authorized to promulgate the rules for admission to the practice of law, for legal assistance to the underprivileged, and the procedural rules to be observed in all courts. The more prominent role of the Court is located in the exercise of its judicial functions. Section 1 of Article VIII contains definition of judicial power that had not been found in previous constitutions. The judicial power is vested in “one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law." This judicial power is exercised through the judiciary's
14487560
Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia


power, apply to a provision that has the effect, as opposed merely to the purpose, of limiting free exercise. When the Constitution took effect in 1901, Quick and Garran argued that Section 116 was redundant as the Commonwealth had not been given the legislative power under Section 51 to establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. In 1963, Pannam wrote that the provision was regarded "by all as having little practical value". Pannam considered the provision would only become significant if the High Court held that it applied to
21207817
Wisconsin v. Yoder


consideration or decision of the case. The Wisconsin Supreme Court "sustained respondents' claim that application of the compulsory school-attendance law to them violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment." The U.S. Supreme Court held as follows: Justice William O. Douglas, who dissented in part, wrote: The ruling is cited as a basis for allowing people to be educated outside traditional private or public schools, such as with homeschooling. The implications of the
18019123
Trump v. Hawaii


. Prior to issuing its ruling in "Trump v. Hawaii", the Court ruled on "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission" (Docket 16-111), a case involving the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and free exercise of religion. Among issues raised by the Court's decision was based on statements made by public officials that the Court deemed "clear and impermissible hostility" and not religiously neutral towards the petitioner, and reversed the officials' decision on this basis. Justice Anthony Kennedy had referenced his majority
10451840
Hugo Black


, it did agree that some "fundamental" guarantees were made applicable to the states. For the most part, during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, only First Amendment rights (such as free exercise of religion and freedom of speech) were deemed sufficiently fundamental by the Supreme Court to be incorporated. However, during the 1960s, the Court under Chief Justice Warren took the process much further, making almost all guarantees of the Bill of Rights binding upon the states. Thus, although the Court failed to accept Black
17645940
Scientology


American Law" writes, "A belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology—a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body—does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court." J. Gordon Melton asserts that while the debate over definitions of religion will continue, "scholars will probably continue in the future
5454321
Free Exercise Clause


Supreme Court struck down the act as applied to the States, holding that it unconstitutionally attempted to usurp the Supreme Court's role in interpreting the Constitution, thus leaving the "Smith" test in place. During the twentieth century, many major cases involving the Free Exercise Clause were related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Many communities directed laws against the Witnesses and their preaching work. From 1938 to 1955, the organization was involved in over forty cases before the Supreme Court, winning a majority of them. The first important victory came
19842395
Dennis v. United States


Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government. In 1948, eleven Communist Party leaders were convicted of advocating the violent overthrow of the US government and for the violation of several points of
6370515
Ross v New Brunswick School District No 15


subsequently ruled that these decisions were in violation of Ross's rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and overturned the District's orders. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ross's removal from the classroom was justifiable, on the grounds that, although it did constitute a violation of his freedoms, this was a reasonable limit, as schoolteachers must be held to a higher standard of behaviour. The Court further ruled that the District's "gag order" (that Ross be dismissed from his non-teaching position
1997804
List of people who entered an Alford plea


Supreme Court Justice Byron White wrote the majority opinion. The Supreme Court case was decided 5–3. "[T]hat he would not have pleaded except for the opportunity to limit the possible penalty does not necessarily demonstrate that the plea of guilty was not the product of a free and rational choice", said the Supreme Court decision. The Court ruled that a plea of guilty that was "a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action" was not a coercive decision. Justice White wrote that, "Express admission of
11255312
Freedom of religion in the United States


Supreme Court rulings have been accommodationist towards religion, in recent years there have been attempts to replace the freedom of religion with the more limited freedom of worship. Although the freedom of religion includes some form of recognition to the individual conscience of each citizen with the possibility of conscientious objection to law or policy, the freedom of worship does not. Controversies surrounding the freedom of religion in the US have included building places of worship, compulsory speech, prohibited counseling, compulsory consumerism, workplace, marriage and the family, the choosing of
3735844
Johnson v. Robison


Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The court held that the Veterans' Administrations' allocation of greater educational benefits to combat veterans than conscientious objectors was consistent with the United States Constitution. Robison, a conscientious objector, argued that such unequal benefits violated his 5th Amendment right to Equal Protection and his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The court rejected both arguments. The court reasoned that a rational basis existed to give combat veterans better benefits
8098079
Freedom of religion in North America by country


Freedoms, which is entrenched in the Constitution, states in the preamble that Canada "is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law." Freedom of religion as also guaranteed. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the case of "Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.", [1985] (1 S.C.R. 295) ruled that a 1906 statute that required most places to be closed on Sunday did not have a legitimate purpose in a "free and
7251294
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation


Cir. 2006), the Eleventh Circuit rejected an argument that the First Amendment proscriptions do not apply to executive action. The Court recognized that the Supreme Court has assumed on countless occasions that the Free Exercise Clause applies to executive action. Similarly, in the present case, the fact that executive branch actions are challenged is not a bar to an Establishment Clause claim; taxpayer standing requires only that the executive action involve the misuse of tax money raised through a Congressional appropriation." The Foundation said that the Appeals Court "rejected
12821449
Elections in Oregon


party; otherwise they will be automatically registered to vote as "Non-affiliated" with any party. The Oregon Constitution allows for a broader right to free speech than at the federal level including the topic of political campaign donations. The Oregon Supreme Court has consistently ruled that campaign contribution limits are a violation of free speech and has struck down many laws and ballot measures that enacted contribution limits. As a result of these rulings, Oregon is one of the only four states that have no campaign contribution limits of any kind.
18733075
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n


November 30, 1987. The petitioner, Richard E. Lyng, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture at the time, claimed that constructing a road and harvesting timber through lands considered sacred by Native American tribes violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The respondent in the case was the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, et al. With the claim at hand, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to rule on the question of whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibited the government from harvesting or developing
7573851
Personal jurisdiction


Supreme Court in "Daimler AG v. Bauman". While the "Pennoyer" and later "Shoe" doctrines limit the maximum power of a sovereign state, courts must also have authorization to exercise the state's power; an individual state may choose to not grant its courts the full power that the state is Constitutionally permitted to exercise. Similarly, the jurisdiction of Federal courts (other than the Supreme Court) are statutorily-defined. Thus, a particular exercise of personal jurisdiction must not only be permitted by Constitutional doctrine,
5066646
Last resort rule


, arising especially from its largely negative character and limited resources of enforcement." Additionally, federal courts are vulnerable to the extent their jurisdiction and the work of their judges are subject to control by the other branches. Proponents of avoidance techniques such as the last resort rule believe that the federal judiciary must exercise its powers cautiously to conserve the fragile credibility of the least dangerous branch. In 1947, evaluating the avoidance doctrine generally, the Supreme Court speculated that to pursue another policy -- a policy of "accelerated decision" -- "
11569804
Indian religions


, Buddhists and Sikhs are religious minorities or not, by either pronouncing judgments or passing legislation. One example is the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in 2006, in a case pertaining to the state of Uttar Pradesh, which declared Jainism to be indisputably distinct from Hinduism, but mentioned that, "The question as to whether the Jains are part of the Hindu religion is open to debate. However, the Supreme Court also noted various court cases that have held Jainism to be a distinct religion. Another example is the Gujarat
14765818
DeKalb County, Indiana


staggered four-year terms. One commissioner serves as president. The commissioners also function as the county drainage board, exercising control over the construction and maintenance of legal drains. Courts: DeKalb County has a Circuit Court (75th Judicial Circuit) and two Superior Courts. By local rule, approved by the Indiana Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is currently limited to juvenile and domestic cases. Criminal, civil and domestic cases are heard in the two superior courts. Judges of each court are elected for six-
13488311
Blue law


In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has held blue laws as constitutional numerous times, citing secular bases such as securing a day of rest for mail carriers, as well as protecting workers and families, in turn contributing to societal stability and guaranteeing the free exercise of religion. The origin of the blue laws also partially stems from religion, particularly the prohibition of Sabbath desecration in Christian Churches following the first-day Sabbatarian tradition. Both labour unions and trade associations have historically supported the legislation of blue laws. Most blue
3018193
Freedom of religion in the United States


Division" ) Likewise in Texas in 2009, issues that related to animal sacrifice and animal rights were taken to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of "Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless." The court ruled that the free exercise of religion was meritorious and prevailing and that Merced was entitled under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA) to an injunction preventing the city of Euless, Texas from enforcing its ordinances that burdened his religious practices relating
3735878