Cases for Con. Law Exam #2
Cantwell v. Connecticut - ✔✔ correct answer Facts of the case
Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jehovah's Witnesses, were proselytizing a predominantly Catholic
neighborhood in Connecticut. They were travelling door-to-door and approaching people on the street.
Two pedestrians reacted angrily to an anti-Catholic message. Cantwell and his sons were arrested and
charged with: (1) violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate before
soliciting funds from the public, and (2) inciting a common-law breach of the peace.
Question
Did the Cantwells' convictions violate the First Amendment?
Conclusion
In a unanimous decision, the Court held the Cantwells' actions were protected by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for the Court, Justice Owen Roberts reasoned that while general
regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not. Because the
statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it
violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public
order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of
views." The Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not threaten "bodily harm" and was
protected religious speech.
Braunfeld v. Brown - ✔✔ correct answer Facts of the case
Abraham Braunfeld owned a retail clothing and home furnishing store in Philadelphia. As an Orthodox
Jew, he was prohibited by his faith from working on Saturday, the Sabbath. The Pennsylvania blue law
only allowed certain stores to remain open for business on Sundays. Braunfeld's store was not one of
those types allowed to be open. He challenged the law as a violation of the religious liberty clauses
because he needed to be open six days a week for economic reasons and was prohibited from doing so
by a tenet of his faith and the blue law.
Question
Did the Pennsylvania blue law violate the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religious
beliefs?
Conclusion
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Pennsylvania blue law did not violate the Free Exercise
Clause. The freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute; however, the freedom to act
,Cases for Con. Law Exam #2
(even in accordance with religious convictions) is not totally free from government restrictions. The
Court found that the Sunday Closing Law had a secular basis and did not make any religious practices
unlawful. The blue law is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance unless the state can
accomplish its secular goal of providing a uniform day of rest for all through other means. That an
indirect burden, such as economic sacrifice, may be a result of the statute, does not make the blue law
unconstitutional.
Sherbert v. Verner - ✔✔ correct answer Facts of the case
Adeil Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was fired from her job after she refused
to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. The Employment Security Commission ruled that she
could not receive unemployment benefits because her refusal to work on Saturday constituted a failure
without good cause to accept available work. Under South Carolina law, employers were not allowed to
require employees to work on Sunday.
Question
Did the denial of unemployment compensation violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion
The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from setting unemployment benefits eligibility
requirements such that a person cannot properly observe key religious principles.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Brennan, the Court held that the state's eligibility restrictions for
unemployment compensation imposed a significant burden on Sherbert's ability to freely exercise her
faith. Furthermore, there was no compelling state interest which justified such a substantial burden on
this basic First Amendment right.
Justices Douglas and Stewart concurred in separate opinions.
Justice Harlan, joined by Justice White, dissented on the ground that Seventh-Day Adventist was
unavailable for Saturday work just as anyone who refuses Saturday work for personal reasons is
unavailable, and that the effect of the Court's decision was to require South Carolina to make an
exception in favor of those whose unavailability for work stems from religious convictions.
Wisconsin v. Yoder - ✔✔ correct answer Facts of the case
, Cases for Con. Law Exam #2
Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a
member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that
required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their
children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their
religious beliefs.
Question
Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the
First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school
for religious reasons?
Conclusion
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under
the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the
eighth grade. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values
and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated
by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the
benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial
dissent but joined with the majority regarding Yoder.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith - ✔✔ correct answer Facts of
the case
Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested
peyote -- a powerful hallucinogen -- as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native
American Church. As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors. The
counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits
because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related "misconduct." The counselors lost
their battle in state court. But the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment
against the disgruntled 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)). On remand,
the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal
drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause. The case returned
to the U.S. Supreme Court in this new posture.
Question
Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?
Cantwell v. Connecticut - ✔✔ correct answer Facts of the case
Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jehovah's Witnesses, were proselytizing a predominantly Catholic
neighborhood in Connecticut. They were travelling door-to-door and approaching people on the street.
Two pedestrians reacted angrily to an anti-Catholic message. Cantwell and his sons were arrested and
charged with: (1) violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate before
soliciting funds from the public, and (2) inciting a common-law breach of the peace.
Question
Did the Cantwells' convictions violate the First Amendment?
Conclusion
In a unanimous decision, the Court held the Cantwells' actions were protected by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for the Court, Justice Owen Roberts reasoned that while general
regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not. Because the
statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it
violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public
order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of
views." The Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not threaten "bodily harm" and was
protected religious speech.
Braunfeld v. Brown - ✔✔ correct answer Facts of the case
Abraham Braunfeld owned a retail clothing and home furnishing store in Philadelphia. As an Orthodox
Jew, he was prohibited by his faith from working on Saturday, the Sabbath. The Pennsylvania blue law
only allowed certain stores to remain open for business on Sundays. Braunfeld's store was not one of
those types allowed to be open. He challenged the law as a violation of the religious liberty clauses
because he needed to be open six days a week for economic reasons and was prohibited from doing so
by a tenet of his faith and the blue law.
Question
Did the Pennsylvania blue law violate the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religious
beliefs?
Conclusion
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Pennsylvania blue law did not violate the Free Exercise
Clause. The freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute; however, the freedom to act
,Cases for Con. Law Exam #2
(even in accordance with religious convictions) is not totally free from government restrictions. The
Court found that the Sunday Closing Law had a secular basis and did not make any religious practices
unlawful. The blue law is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance unless the state can
accomplish its secular goal of providing a uniform day of rest for all through other means. That an
indirect burden, such as economic sacrifice, may be a result of the statute, does not make the blue law
unconstitutional.
Sherbert v. Verner - ✔✔ correct answer Facts of the case
Adeil Sherbert, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was fired from her job after she refused
to work on Saturday, the Sabbath Day of her faith. The Employment Security Commission ruled that she
could not receive unemployment benefits because her refusal to work on Saturday constituted a failure
without good cause to accept available work. Under South Carolina law, employers were not allowed to
require employees to work on Sunday.
Question
Did the denial of unemployment compensation violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion
The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from setting unemployment benefits eligibility
requirements such that a person cannot properly observe key religious principles.
In a majority opinion written by Justice Brennan, the Court held that the state's eligibility restrictions for
unemployment compensation imposed a significant burden on Sherbert's ability to freely exercise her
faith. Furthermore, there was no compelling state interest which justified such a substantial burden on
this basic First Amendment right.
Justices Douglas and Stewart concurred in separate opinions.
Justice Harlan, joined by Justice White, dissented on the ground that Seventh-Day Adventist was
unavailable for Saturday work just as anyone who refuses Saturday work for personal reasons is
unavailable, and that the effect of the Court's decision was to require South Carolina to make an
exception in favor of those whose unavailability for work stems from religious convictions.
Wisconsin v. Yoder - ✔✔ correct answer Facts of the case
, Cases for Con. Law Exam #2
Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a
member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that
required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their
children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their
religious beliefs.
Question
Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the
First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school
for religious reasons?
Conclusion
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under
the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the
eighth grade. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values
and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated
by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the
benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law.Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial
dissent but joined with the majority regarding Yoder.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith - ✔✔ correct answer Facts of
the case
Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested
peyote -- a powerful hallucinogen -- as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native
American Church. As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors. The
counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits
because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related "misconduct." The counselors lost
their battle in state court. But the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment
against the disgruntled 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)). On remand,
the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal
drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause. The case returned
to the U.S. Supreme Court in this new posture.
Question
Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?
