The Supreme Court Corrects a Seventy-Five-Year Distortion in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence

Indiana law review Pub Date : 2023-02-06 DOI:10.18060/27144
P. Garry
{"title":"The Supreme Court Corrects a Seventy-Five-Year Distortion in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence","authors":"P. Garry","doi":"10.18060/27144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District,1 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment Clause did not prohibit a high school football coach from offering a brief mid-field prayer at the conclusion of games. The Ninth Circuit had held that the coach’s free exercise rights had to yield to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition of conduct that might reflect a state endorsement of religion. In overturning the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court issued an historic and far-reaching ruling on the scope and nature of the Establishment Clause, providing the first truly clarifying decision in this area in the past seventy-five years. The Court held that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses were not in tension and that the Establishment Clause could not be used to limit theFree Exercise Clause. Even more profoundly, the Court rejected the use of tests that over time had become hostile to religious liberty. Finally, the Court stated that it would decide future Establishment Clause cases by consulting the historical meaning of the Clause. This Article analyzes the future impact that the Kennedy decision will exert on Establishment Clause jurisprudence.","PeriodicalId":81517,"journal":{"name":"Indiana law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indiana law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18060/27144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District,1 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment Clause did not prohibit a high school football coach from offering a brief mid-field prayer at the conclusion of games. The Ninth Circuit had held that the coach’s free exercise rights had to yield to the Establishment Clause’s prohibition of conduct that might reflect a state endorsement of religion. In overturning the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court issued an historic and far-reaching ruling on the scope and nature of the Establishment Clause, providing the first truly clarifying decision in this area in the past seventy-five years. The Court held that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses were not in tension and that the Establishment Clause could not be used to limit theFree Exercise Clause. Even more profoundly, the Court rejected the use of tests that over time had become hostile to religious liberty. Finally, the Court stated that it would decide future Establishment Clause cases by consulting the historical meaning of the Clause. This Article analyzes the future impact that the Kennedy decision will exert on Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
最高法院纠正75年来政教分离条款法理上的扭曲
在肯尼迪诉布雷默顿学区案中,美国最高法院裁定,确立条款并不禁止高中橄榄球教练在比赛结束时进行简短的中场祈祷。第九巡回法院认为,教练的自由行使权必须服从《政教隔离条款》的规定,即禁止可能反映国家对宗教的支持的行为。在推翻第九巡回法院的判决时,最高法院就政教隔离条款的范围和性质作出了一项具有历史意义和影响深远的裁决,这是过去75年来在这一领域首次真正澄清的裁决。法院认为,宗教信仰自由条款和宗教信仰自由条款并不矛盾,宗教信仰自由条款不能用来限制宗教信仰自由条款。更为深刻的是,法院拒绝使用随着时间的推移而变得不利于宗教自由的检验方法。最后,法院表示,它将通过参考该条款的历史含义来决定未来的政教分离条款案件。本文分析了肯尼迪判决对政教分离条款法理学的未来影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信