The Supreme Court’s upcoming religious liberty cases could redefine the boundaries between faith and government, potentially reversing decades of precedent that has limited religious expression in public life.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court is hearing three major religious liberty cases this month involving tax exemption for religious charities, Catholic charter schools, and parental religious rights.
- Legal experts note a significant shift in the Roberts Court, with the conservative majority showing stronger protection for mainstream religious expression
- Historical Supreme Court decisions have shaped religious freedom jurisprudence from the 1879 Reynolds case through modern interpretations
- Critics argue that the “wall of separation” concept introduced in 1947’s Everson decision has been misapplied to restrict legitimate religious expression
- The outcomes of these cases may significantly reshape American education and the relationship between religion and government
A Century of Religious Liberty Jurisprudence
The Supreme Court’s approach to religious liberty has evolved dramatically since its 1879 ruling in Reynolds v. United States, which established that the government could punish criminal activity even when religiously motivated. This foundational case set boundaries that have been reexamined throughout American legal history. By 1940, in Cantwell v. Connecticut, the Court applied the Free Exercise Clause to state actions for the first time when it struck down a statute requiring permits for religious solicitation, expanding protections for religious practice.
The pivotal 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education marked a turning point when Justice Hugo Black introduced the concept of a “wall of separation between church and state” – language not found in the Constitution itself. This interpretation fundamentally altered how courts approached religious liberty cases for decades. The decision upheld a New Jersey law reimbursing transportation costs to parochial schools while simultaneously establishing strict limitations on government involvement with religion.
Throughout the mid-20th century, the Court continued developing its religious freedom doctrine. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the justices ruled against state-composed prayer in public schools. The following year, Sherbert v. Verner established that denying unemployment benefits to someone refusing to work on their Sabbath violated the Free Exercise Clause. The 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision created the “Lemon test” for determining Establishment Clause violations, further restricting government accommodation of religion.
Balancing Religious Freedom and Secular Governance
The tension between religious liberty and other social interests has defined many Supreme Court decisions. The 1972 Wisconsin v. Yoder case exemplified this balance when the Court exempted Amish children from compulsory education past 8th grade, prioritizing religious freedom over standardized education requirements. This ruling showed the Court’s willingness to accommodate sincere religious practice even when it conflicted with generally applicable laws.
“In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.” said Chief Justice Warren Burger.
However, the Court’s approach shifted significantly with Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, which allowed the denial of unemployment benefits for religiously-motivated peyote use. This controversial decision effectively lowered the standard of review for neutral laws that burden religious exercise. Two years later, in Lee v. Weisman, the Court ruled against clergy-led prayer at school graduations, further restricting religious expression in educational settings. These decisions reflected the Court’s challenging task of defining appropriate boundaries between religious freedom and secular governance.
The Roberts Court and Religious Liberty’s Resurgence
The current Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has demonstrated a renewed interest in religious liberty cases, particularly those involving the Free Exercise clause. Legal scholars have observed a significant shift favoring protection for religious expression, especially for mainstream Christian denominations. This trend is evident in three major cases before the Court this term that could substantially reshape American religious liberty jurisprudence.
“Arkansas has sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution, because it is contrary to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man. No suggestion has been made that Arkansas’s law may be justified by considerations of state policy other than the religious views of some of its citizens.” said Justice Abe Fortas.
The first case involves a Catholic social service charity in Wisconsin seeking tax exemption that was previously denied by the state Supreme Court. The second addresses whether a Catholic charter school can open in Oklahoma, challenging a state ruling that charter schools must remain strictly secular. The third case concerns Maryland parents requesting to withdraw their children from classes featuring sexual material they find objectionable on religious grounds. Two prominent legal organizations, the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Brennan Center for Religious Liberty, are central to bringing these cases before the Court.
Potential Impact on American Religious Freedom
The outcomes of these cases will provide significant insight into the Court’s current understanding of the relationship between religion and government. Critics of past interpretations argue that Justice Black’s “wall of separation” concept has been misapplied to restrict legitimate religious expression in ways the Founding Fathers never intended. They suggest that restoring religious liberty protections could help unite the nation and better align with the original constitutional vision.
The Roberts Court’s decisions on these cases will likely have far-reaching consequences for religious organizations, public education, and parental rights across America. Regardless of the outcomes, they will represent another significant chapter in the ongoing constitutional dialogue about how to properly balance religious freedom with other compelling governmental interests in a diverse democratic society. The decisions are expected later this term and will undoubtedly influence religious liberty jurisprudence for generations to come.
