Other Conflicts Involving "Free Exercise" of Religion

The three cases in this lesson all involve conflicts between the First Amendment’s "free exercise" clause and various governmental interests. All of them were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of the petitioner’s "free exercise" rights. In Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the if the state limits an individual’s free exercise of religion resulting in a substantial burden on that individual (such as loss of benefits), the state must have a compelling interest to do so (e.g., a state can ban murder and suicide even if someone’s religion advocates human sacrifice because life is a compelling state interest for the state to protect). Since the Court could not find a compelling state interest in denying benefits to Sherbert, the Court ruled in her favor. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that a state’s interest in universal education must be balanced with the free exercise clause and the rights of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children. The court also noted that the Amish parents did provide an alternative vocational education for their children that met the interests of the state. The unanimous decision (9-0) of the Supreme Court in Church of Lukumi Bablu Aye v. City of Hialeah stated that the law was an unconstitutional attempt to directly suppress the Santerians religious practices and the government’s interests were not compelling.

Students will be able to:

1. enact their respective roles in a moot court simulation.

2. increase their understanding of how the Supreme Court has tried to balance the free exercise clause with various governmental interests.

Handout 6A, "Moot Court: Sherbert v. Verner"

Handout 6B, "Sherbert v. Verner"

Handout 6C "Moot Court: Wisconsin v. Yoder"

Handout6D, "Wisconsin v. Yoder"

Handout 6E, "Moot Court: Church of Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah;"

Handout 6F "Church of Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah"

2 class periods

1. Briefly review the cases in lessons 4 and 5 by asking questions about the values in conflict with "free exercise" and how those cases were decided.

2. Follow the procedures for "Guidelines for Conducting Simultaneous Moot Court Hearings" contained in the Teaching Strategies section of this manual.

3. During debriefing, point out that the Sherbert case was the most important of these three for it established the rule that if the state limits an individual’s free exercise of religion resulting in a substantial burden on that individual, the state must have a compelling interest to do so (see background above).

Have students create a split journal for each of the cases Sherbert v. Verner, Wisconsin v. Yoder, and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Students should divide the page into two columns. In one column, they should explain the facts and issues of each case. In the other column, they should state their feelings about the case. Students should then prepare a magazine article of at least two paragraphs summarizing what they have written in their journal entries.

Based on multiple intelligence theory.

Linguistic: Have students engage in an activity that strengthens listening skills. In the first part of the activity, the teacher should read aloud either Sherbert v. Verner, Wisconsin v. Yoder, or Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. As students are listening to the teacher read the case, have students summarize the key points of the case dealing with "free exercise" and "compelling state interest" in writing. In the second part of the activity, have students engage in "active listening." A student will answer a question about the case. The next student called upon will summarize the previous student's response. The previous student should indicate whether the response was accurately summarized. The process can continue with several questions.

Kinesthetic: Have students videotape one of the moot court sessions. Show the tape to the class for their reactions.

Have students prepare a television script about one of the cases and perform a scene based on that script.

Spatial: Have students use puppets to recreate one of the moot court sessions with students speaking for the puppets.

Write a slogan supporting the position of one of the defendants in the three cases.

Intrapersonal: Have students rate the intensity of their feelings about the right to practice their religion on a scale of 1-5.

Interpersonal: Divide the class into groups of four students each. Instruct the groups to engage in a "jigsawing" activity as follows: Each member of the group will be responsible for one of the three cases studied in this lesson. When students feel confident that they understand the assigned case, have them share their knowledge with the group. The group will then collectively prepare a magazine article entitled "Free Exercise of Religion" including a discussion of all three cases.

Below is the fact pattern of Sherbert v. Verner. The U.S. Supreme Court decided this case in 1963.

Mrs. Sherbert was a Seventh Day Adventist. This religion did not allow her to work on Saturdays. She worked in a textile mill. The mill began opening on Saturdays. She was fired because she would not work on Saturdays. The state unemployment office offered her jobs at other mills. She refused all of these jobs. Her reason was that they also would have made her work on Saturdays. The unemployment office stopped paying her benefits. This was because she refused the other jobs. The State Supreme Court agreed with the unemployment office. Mrs. Sherbert appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Which clause of the First Amendment applies to this case?
• Precedents: Reynolds v. U.S. (1878; lesson 4); West Virginia v. Barnette (1943; lesson 5); and NAACP v. Button (1963) held that only a compelling state interest can justify limiting First Amendment freedoms.

• Did the state have a compelling interest that necessitated denying Mrs. Sherbert her benefits?

The Supreme Court Is Now in Session:

Below is the fact pattern ofWisconsin v. Yoder. The U.S. Supreme Court decided the case in 1972.

The Yoder family were Amish. The Amish lead a simple life. They live in communities apart from the modern world. The Yoders sent their children to elementary school. They believed the children should learn to read. They refused to send their children to the public high school. A Wisconsin law required school attendance until age 16. The Yoders refused to obey it. They felt that the conditions in a public high school conflicted with their religious beliefs. Several experts testified at the trial for the Yoders. They said that high school could mentally damage the Yoder children. Living in the Amish world and attending a public high school would confuse the children. Instead, the Yoders would teach their children farming and good citizenship.

However, the trial court ruled against the Yoders. The appeals court upheld the compulsory attendance law as reasonable. The State Supreme Court reversed the appeals court. The State Supreme Court ruled that compelling attendance did not justify limiting Yoders’ free exercise of religion. Wisconsin appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

• Which clause of the First Amendment applies to this case?
• Precedents: Reynolds v. U.S. (1878; lesson 4); West Virginia v. Barnette (1943; lesson 5); Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) upheld the right of parents to be excused from compulsory education laws by sending their children to a private school; and Sherbert v. Verner (1963) held that only a compelling state interest can justify limiting the free exercise of religion.

• Should religious freedom have priority over compulsory education?

Review Student Instructions for Moot Court Hearings before you begin.

Below is the fact pattern of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. The U.S. Supreme Court decided this case in 1993.

The Santeria religion use animal sacrifice. It is a part of their church services. The animals are killed and cooked. Then, they are eaten at their worship service. Some Santerians leased land in Hialeah, Florida. They planned to build a church on it. Some members of the Hialeah City Council were opposed. The council passed an emergency law. The law punishes anyone who "unnecessarily…kills any animal." It specifically banned the sacrifice of animals in any type of ritual. Only slaughterhouses could kill animals under this law. The city said it was interested in public health. Sacrificed animals may not be properly disposed of. However, the city did not regulate the disposal of animals killed by hunters. It did not regulate the disposal of leftover food at restaurants.

The federal district court ruled in favor of the city. It said the city had a compelling governmental interest to prevent health problems and cruelty to animals. The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the ruling. The Santerians appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Which clause of the First Amendment applies to this case?
• Precedents: Reynolds v. U.S. (1878; lesson 4); West Virginia v. Barnette (1943; lesson 5); Sherbert v. Verner (1963) held that only a compelling state interest can justify limiting the free exercise of religion.
• Was the city trying to regulate the disposal of all dead animals or just trying to stop the Santerians use of animal sacrifices?