Latest news with #EstablishmentClause
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Court blocks Louisiana law requiring schools to post Ten Commandments in classrooms
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' order stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The mandate was signed into law last June by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry. Advertisement The court's ruling backs an order issued last fall by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to take steps to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision. Law experts have long said they expect the Louisiana case to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, testing the conservative court on the issue of religion and government. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The high court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose. Advertisement In 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.
Scientific American
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scientific American
American Education Demands a Fact-Based Curriculum, Not Religious Ideology
In July of 1925 hundreds of reporters and other onlookers crowded into a sweltering courtroom in Dayton, Tenn., to watch what would become widely recognized as the trial of the century. Against a backdrop of societal anxieties over cultural upheaval, the Scopes 'monkey trial,' as it was dubbed in the press, pitted the authority of the Bible against the evidence-based science behind evolution. At the center of the trial was John Scopes, a 24-year-old teacher accused of teaching human evolution at a public school, in violation of a religiously motivated state law against it. Opinions on who won the case differ depending on whom you ask. Technically the defense lost—the jury found Scopes guilty of breaking the law, and the judge ordered him to pay a $100 fine (a ruling that was later overturned on a technicality). But defense attorney Clarence Darrow's arguments raised public awareness of the evidence supporting evolution and the threat that religious dogma posed to science education, academic freedom and individual liberty. Still, for decades after the trial, discussion of evolution in high school textbooks declined, and in many cases, it was omitted altogether. One hundred years after that famous trial, education in the U.S. is still under attack from the same antiscience political forces, which are continuously using state and federal courts to assail the roles of critical thinking, inquisition and curiosity in schools in favor of religious instruction. Those who value public education must redouble their efforts to fight those forces. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. In theory, the teaching of religion in public schools should not be up for debate. Separation of church and state is a pillar of our democracy. In theory, the teaching of religion in public schools should not be up for debate. Separation of church and state is a pillar of our democracy. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government from favoring a particular religion, and this clause has long been interpreted in courts as prohibiting the establishment of religion in publicly funded institutions, including schools. Yet just last year West Virginia passed a law that, according to its supporters, allows public school educators to discuss faith-based notions such as intelligent design (another name for creationism, the conservative Christian idea that God created all species in their current form and that humans did not evolve from other species) as scientific theories. Tennessee, Louisiana and Mississippi have enacted similar laws. Some recent attempts to inject religious ideas about the origin of life into public school science curricula have failed. In February, North Dakota's Senate Bill 2355, which would have required the state superintendent of public instruction to include intelligent design in the state science-content standards, was defeated in the Senate. In April, a Minnesota bill that would have required the state's school districts to instruct students about 'the Creator' met its end in committee. But lest we become too optimistic about these outcomes, other efforts to erode the division between church and state have proved worryingly successful. In April, Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a bill into law that mandates the display of posters bearing the Ten Commandments and 'In God We Trust' in the state's classrooms. A similar law was passed in Louisiana last year but was later blocked by a federal judge who called it 'overtly religious' and 'unconstitutional on its face.' At press time, a Texas bill that would require public schools to display the Ten Commandments was making its way through the legislature, as was a bill to allow prayer and Bible-reading sessions in public schools. It's not just posters and prayer time. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case about whether tax dollars can be used to fund religious schools, and some justices are using the case to field the idea that separation of church and state should not be allowed. The Catholic Church is asking Oklahoma to recognize its St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School as a religious charter school. Charter schools are publicly funded. Writing about the case in the New Yorker, Ruth Marcus observed that at St. Isidore, 'introductory high-school science would 'reveal God's orderly creation of the universe,' while physiology would adopt 'a faith-based approach to the value of human life from the beginnings of a cell.' The school would be open to all applicants, whether Catholic or not, but students would be required to attend Mass....' If St. Isidore is successful in its bid, the case will force taxpayers to subsidize a religious education for students that may not align with their own beliefs, diverting funds from inclusive secular schools toward sectarian ones that discriminate against those who do not share their faith. Another clause in the First Amendment, the so-called Free Exercise Clause, protects the right to practice one's religion (or lack thereof) without government interference. Many new attempts to infuse religion into public schools try to present themselves as efforts toward this end, arguing that excluding religious teachings from public funding amounts to discrimination. We cannot fall for that argument. Children go to school to attain knowledge. They need to learn facts and figures, yes, but perhaps more important, they need to learn how to evaluate evidence and arguments, not to uncritically accept the teachings of a particular faith. Religious freedom—actual religious freedom—depends on preventing the incursion of any and all religious beliefs, whether they are masquerading as alternative scientific theories or blatantly evangelizing, into public schools. We must protect every child's right to a public education that is free of religious indoctrination and prepares them to navigate the many challenges of the real world as modern science understands it.
Hindustan Times
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Trump v. Hawaii: Explaining case cited in new US travel ban order affecting Cuba and Haiti
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation imposing travel restrictions on 19 countries, including a complete ban on nationals from 12 countries. The affected nations include Cuba and Haiti. The White House cited the Trump vs Hawaii (2018) as a legal precedent in its latest press release. The proclamation, enacted under Executive Order 14161, fully bans entry from 12 nations and partially restricts seven, including Cuba (partial) and Haiti (full), to combat terrorism and national security risks. Trump v. Hawaii upheld the president's authority to restrict entry, a ruling central to the new ban's justification. Trump v. Hawaii (585 US 667) challenged Proclamation No. 9645, Trump's third travel ban, issued on September 24, 2017. It restricted entry from eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen), citing deficient vetting and security risks. Hawaii, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and others sued, alleging the ban violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by targeting Muslims. The case centered on whether the president's authority under INA Section 212(f) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f))—allowing suspension of entry for foreigners deemed 'detrimental' to US interests—was lawful and whether the ban was motivated by anti-Muslim bias. On June 26, 2018, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court upheld the ban. The majority ruled: Presidential Authority: Section 212(f) grants the president broad discretion to suspend entry when national security is at stake, supported by a worldwide review of vetting processes. No Religious Discrimination: The ban was facially neutral, based on security concerns, not anti-Muslim animus, despite Trump's campaign statements. The Court applied rational basis review, finding the ban had a 'legitimate purpose." Dissent: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented, arguing the ban was rooted in anti-Muslim rhetoric, violating the Establishment Clause, and drawing parallels to Korematsu v. United States (1944). The 2025 proclamation relies on Trump v. Haiti to justify restrictions under Section 212(f), citing the same authority upheld in 2018. The new ban targets countries like Haiti (31.38% B1/B2 visa overstay rate) and Cuba (state sponsor of terrorism) for inadequate vetting and security risks.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Amy Coney Barrett Decision Gives Libs Win in Shock SCOTUS Ruling
Oklahoma will not be able to use government money to fund a Catholic charter school, the Supreme Court ruled after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case. In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the Supreme Court rejected the proposal for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School to receive direct government funding in a 4-4 split ruling on Thursday. In instances where the justices are evenly split, the lower court ruling—in this case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court—stands. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' the one-page ruling simply said. It did not note how each justice had voted. The lower court ruled that plans to open the nation's first-ever government-funded religious charter school were prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion or favoring one faith over another. While the split means the lower-court ruling stands, it does not set a precedent for other courts across the country to follow. It was not immediately clear why Justice Coney Barrett—whom President Donald Trump appointed in 2020—recused herself from the case, which meant she did not take part in oral arguments or the final ruling. The New York Times speculated that Coney Barrett's decision could have stemmed from her close relationship with Nicole Stelle Garnett, who was previously an adviser for the Oklahoma school. Coney Barrett and Garnett worked together at the Supreme Court in the 1990s before becoming colleagues at Notre Dame Law School. Coney Barrett has fallen out of the MAGA crowd in recent months after siding with her liberal counterparts in some high-profile cases. In one of those decisions in March, she sided with the court's liberal wing to block the White House's effort to freeze almost $2 billion in foreign aid. The decision Thursday prompted some MAGA supporters to label Coney Barrett a 'DEI pick,' referring to 'diversity, equity, and inclusion.' MAGA influencer Mike Cernovich wrote: 'She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes... Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.' The proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School was set to be run by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. It would have been the first school to teach Catholicism to students while receiving taxpayer funds. The original proposal for the school was approved in June 2023; Oklahoma's Statewide Virtual Charter School Board voted to approve the school in a tight 3-2 ballot after a nearly three-hour meeting. But the state's attorney general, Gentner Drummond, sued over the decision in a bid to prevent the school from opening.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A Split Supreme Court Says Oklahoma Can't Have a Religious Charter School
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that Oklahoma cannot allow the creation of a religious charter school. The deadlocked 4–4 ruling kept a lower court's previous decision in place without explaining the justices' rationale. The case stems from a plan to allow the creation of a public Catholic charter school called St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. While Oklahoma's charter school board initially approved the school in 2023, the state's attorney general asked the state Supreme Court to intervene. Both sides made arguments that appeal to religious freedom. The state argued that it would violate the Establishment Clause to allow a religious school to receive public funds and operate as a public school. St. Isidore, on the other hand, argued that a ban on religious charter schools would essentially be religious discrimination. Charter schools are allowed to abide by a wide range of educational philosophies; therefore only targeting religious pedagogy is unfair. Ultimately, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state. "What St. Isidore requests from this Court is beyond the fair treatment of a private religious institution in receiving a generally available benefit," reads the state Supreme Court's 2024 opinion. "It is about the State's creation and funding of a new religious institution violating the Establishment Clause." The case poses tough questions about under which circumstances the state can fund religious institutions—many states, for example, already allow parents to use public money to send their children to private religious schools through school choice programs. Unfortunately, the Court's decision didn't create much clarity. While the 4-4 decision leaves the state Supreme Court's ruling in place, it did not include an explanation from the justices, nor did it reveal how they voted. (Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself, likely due to her affiliation with Notre Dame Law School, whose religious liberties legal clinic helped defend the charter school in the case.) This most recent deadlock at the Supreme Court shows just how murky debates over where religious discrimination ends and religious establishment begins can be. "This is a rock-and-a-hard-place situation for the Supreme Court," Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, wrote for Reason last month. "Rule against St. Isidore, and discrimination against religion wins. Rule for it, and dangerous government entanglement will ensue." The post A Split Supreme Court Says Oklahoma Can't Have a Religious Charter School appeared first on
