Sunday Night Showdown: Church vs. State!

 

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Thomas Jefferson

Court is in session! This week marks the half-way point on our journey through the Top Ten Supreme Court cases of this year. The Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley case revolves around the idea of the separation of church and state, especially in regards to government funds and aid.

The debate over the separation of church and state is almost as old as the church and the creation of the first state. The timeless conversation is about where to draw the line between the two powers and whether or not they can ever be completely separate and equal.

The Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia operates a licensed daycare, The Learning Center, which began as a nonprofit and then merged with the Trinity Organization in 1985. Since then, The Learning Center has operated under Trinity and thus incorporated religious lessons into its programs. As expected, The Learning Center maintains a playground for its students and felt it necessary to resurface the playground. In the state of Missouri, where The Learning Center is located, the Department of Natural Resources offers scrap tire material grants to organizations that qualify under state and federal law. The Learning Center applied for one of these grants, but was denied based on an Article within the Missouri Constitution that states “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section, or denomination of religion.”

Trinity sued on behalf of The Learning Center claiming that the state constitution violated the Center’s First and Fourteenth amendment rights, specifically the freedom to express one’s religion and speech and the right to equal protection under the law. The district court dismissed the case and the Trinity Organization amended its complaint so as to state that other religious organizations had been previously granted state funds and that they should receive equal funds as well. All higher level courts affirmed the district court’s opinion, but the Supreme Court has allowed that this case be presented before it.

The constitutional question that is presented by this case is… “does the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause?”

This case seems to present a relatively straightforward problem and one that does not express a very large “grey area” of interpretation. The separation of church and state has been a long standing rule, guideline, law, etc. in our nation’s history. Regardless of the fact that other religiously affiliated organizations might have received some form of state and federal aid, there does not appear to be a clear reason why Trinity and The Learning Center should receive any of this aid, if we are simply following the law. However, this case poses the question of whether it is better to completely cut off aid to religiously affiliated organizations, or rather should aid be given to all and any that require it, for then is the state and government truly endorsing one religion over the other?

 

Links:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-577

 

 

“Knock, Knock…”

“We the people…”

 

This week in court we will be discussing the case of Los Angeles County v. Mendez. Number four on our list of the top ten cases on the Supreme Court’s docket this year to watch, L.A. County v. Mendez revolves around the hot topic of the use of force in relation to police work, warrants, and unlawful entry into homes, businesses, etc.

This case dates back to October 2010, when two deputies from the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department responded to a call that a wanted parolee, Ronnie O’Dell, had been spotted in front of another citizen’s residence. The deputies responded to the call and proceeded to clear the house and then moved onto the backyard, under the direction of other officers. The deputies determined that O’Dell was not in any of the backyard structures; they then proceeded to another structure where two other citizens, Mendez and Garcia, we’re living. The officers failed to announce their presence as they opened the door and one deputy saw the silhouette of a person holding what appeared to be rifle and thus alerted his partner of the weapon. The two deputies proceeded to shoot both Mendez and Garcia, resulting in Mendez having his right leg amputated and Garcia being shot in the back. Throughout the trial it was unclear of whether Mendez and Garcia purposefully pointed the gun towards the officers or were merely moving it out of the way.

Mendez and Garcia sued the deputies, Conley and Pederson, claiming that their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated and that the officers had performed an “unjustified warrantless search” and did not adhere to the “knock and announce rule.” The court ruled that the officers use of force was justified, but they were held liable for the use of deadly force because the incident was classified as “intentionally or recklessly provoking a violent confrontation,” under the Fourth Amendment. At higher level courts, the decision that the officers search violated the Fourth Amendment was upheld, but they reversed the “knock and announce” violation because there is no clear declaration that officers must announce their presence again at a property they have already entered.

This case ties together many topics and questions that are currently swirling around the nation about police work. When is force necessary? How much? How justifiable is it? Can there be a clear line to define the use of force and when to announce their presence or just jump right into the situation? Are there exceptions to the declared rules? In this case, I do believe that it was fair to hold the officers liable for the shooting based on the fact that they recklessly entered a situation and failed to announce their presence again, but then again how can any of us speak on the actual events that took place; we weren’t there and didn’t have to make split life or death decisions.

 

Link(s):

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/16-369

Equality

 

 

“We all should know that diversity makes for a rich tapestry, and we must understand that all the threads of the tapestry are equal in value no matter what their color.”

Maya Angelou

This week’s session in court takes us to Gloucester County, VA, where a transitioning student has been denied the use of the restroom that matches his gender identity. The third Supreme Court case on our list of the top ten this year, G.G. v. Gloucester Country School Board is very relevant to the social climate of our nation.

Gavin Grimm, a student at Gloucester High School, is a transgender male student who began his transition at the beginning of his sophomore year. Having been seeking treatment for severe gender dysphoria, Gavin and his mom notified the high school of his transition so that he could return to school and be allowed to use proper facilities that matched his gender identity. Administrators granted Gavin the ability to use the restroom that agreed with his gender identity; he did so without incident for two months. Unfortunately, after a few weeks the school received complaints from both students, parents, and residents of Gloucester County about Gavin. Thus the school adopted a new policy that forced Gavin to use separate restrooms and facilities that were not in line with his gender identity and were also against ACLU regulations (ACLU—American Civil Liberties Union). This policy still remains and the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the Gloucester County School Board for discrimination. This policy also violates Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As of October 28th, the Supreme Court agreed that it will review this case from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Given the current debate about LBGTQ rights in our nation, this case can serve as the one that paves the way for meaningful change; it can change the lives of so many for the better. I feel and I hope that the court will overturn this discriminatory policy in the Gloucester School District because Gavin deserves to express his rights and his gender identity freely; it’s that simple.

 

Links:

https://www.aclu.org/cases/gg-v-gloucester-county-school-board

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/16-273

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/67256-we-all-should-know-that-diversity-makes-for-a-rich

Fr(me)e Speech

 

“Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech.”

Charles Bradlaugh

For this week’s installment in our journey through the top ten Supreme Court cases to follow on this year’s docket we will be discussing the case Lee vs. Tam, which discusses “disparaging trademarks.” A case revolving around the First Amendment and the freedom of speech, this case talks about the law against disparaging trademarks, which has existed since 1946, but the Supreme Court has never expressed its full opinion or interpretation of this clause.

In this case, Simon Tam and his band “The Slants” wanted to register their band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office, but their request was denied because it was disparaging to those of Asian descent. The Trademark Office cited the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act from 1946, which prohibits the use of trademarks and logos that are deemed immoral or may suggest a relation to a certain group of people, belief, institution, etc. On his third appeal, Tam’s request was denied because the judges decided that they were within their rights to refuse Tam’s request to trademark his band’s name. However, later the case was overturned and it was determined that the Trademark Office was violating Tam’s First Amendment right by denying him the ability to trademark his band’s name and thus indirectly stated that the Disparagement Clause from 1946 also violated the First Amendment. Simply, the case asks “is the Disparagement Clause invalid under the First Amendment?”

This case at its base touches on one of our most tightly protected rights—freedom of speech. So, is there any way to truly regulate what people say? I guess the simple answer is no because people are free to express their opinions and thoughts as much or as little as they want, and given how many ways there are to express one’s opinion in today’s world it is hard to avoid running into situations like this. I agree with the fact that if Tam’s band wants to Trademark their name they should be able to do so and I understand that their name is offensive, but they have the right to choose what name they will use. Once they choose a name, it is more on their part to regulate themselves and the message they will send as a band using said name. Here, responsibility falls more on the individual than the law; people must be able to regulate and understand certain social standards when expressing how they feel. Although this decision may appear to be insensitive, it is the most neutral and simple way to approach this issue.

A similar case to Lee vs. Tam was the case against the Washington Redskins football team and the discussion over whether the team should change their trademark because it was offensive to a certain group of people. Although that case never made it to the Supreme Court, it was dismissed in October 2016, it presents a near parallel story to that of Lee vs. Tam, and as a matter of fact Lee vs. Tam was cited in the arguments in the case against the Washington Redskins.

Links:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/free_speech.html

10 Supreme Court cases to watch in 2017

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1293

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/politics/supreme-court-washington-redskins-trademark/