Supreme Court – Blue Cereal Education

Flast v. Cohen (1968)

Blue Cereal — Tue, 06 Sep 2022 23:48:29 +0000

The case began when Florence Flast and other New York taxpayers objected to federal legislation which provided funds for the purchase of secular textbooks for use in religious private schools. They argued that using their tax dollars in this way violated the Establishment Clause. The government responded with a derisive chuckle and a gaze full of pity for these poor fools who clearly didn’t understand how these things worked. See, way back in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923), the Court had specifically addressed the question of whether or not taxpayers had standing to sue based on being taxpayers. “No,” they said. “Absolutely not. Don’t be stupid.” If the government takes your money against your will and then uses it for something you don’t like – especially something you’re pretty sure they’re not supposed to be doing anyway – take it up with your elected representatives. That’s totally not the job of the judicial branch – “separation of powers” and all that.

Besides, both the gathering of taxes and the distribution of state funds were simply too general and, you know… big. It was impossible to connect specific state expenses to individual taxpayer contributions in more than a theoretical way – like identifying which raindrops were responsible for a flood downriver weeks later. Besides, every act of legislation, particularly when it involves spending, potentially impacts the economy. Maybe the very act you’re opposing is actually lowering your taxes somehow – did you think of that, Little Miss Lawsuit-Pants?

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)

Blue Cereal — Mon, 08 Aug 2022 00:22:44 +0000

Santeria is one of those religions that the folks most likely to demand more “freedom of religion” in the United States don’t actually mean to include. What sets Santeria apart – at least in modern times – is the role of animal sacrifice. Historically, the ritual slaughter of various critters as offerings to the gods is pretty standard stuff. The Jews of the Old Testament are the most familiar example, but it was also common among the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Norse, Egyptians, and numerous other cultures. Christians echo the tradition by symbolically drinking of the blood and eating the flesh of the Son of God, thus maintaining the ritual with less clean-up afterwards. Islam rejects the “blood for favors or forgiveness” element and retains a single annual sacrifice of thankfulness each year during Eid al-Adha.

But in Santeria, sacrifices are far more old school...

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – from “Have To” History

Blue Cereal — Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:49:51 +0000

NOTE: This is an excerpt from "Have To" History: A Wall of Education. In the 50+ years since this decision was issued, the "Lemon Test" has been clarified, narrowed, reinforced, and finally all but discarded by an evolving Supreme Court. (The recent decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton references it several dozen times - mostly negatively.)

That's unfortunate, in my opinion, because it was for several decades one of the most straightforward and balanced approaches to avoiding "establishment" problems without overly hindering "free exercise." The case is still important, however - not only because of the issues involved and the "test" which resulted, but for the erudite arguments and genuine efforts to remain pragmatic without sacrificing fundamental liberties on either side. The majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren Burger is one of the best on this topic in the entire history of the Court.

Holt v. Hobbs (2015): Who Then Can Be Shaved?

Blue Cereal — Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:08:21 +0000

The Arkansas Department of Corrections doesn’t allow prisoners to grow beards (with some exceptions made for inmates with specific skin conditions). The argument was that inmates could conceivably hide contraband in their beards and that shaving them off would allow them to quickly change their appearance should they escape.

One suspects these were largely rationalizations, but prison isn’t primarily intended to be a great place for personal expression, so maybe officials have the right to tweak a few rules for their own purposes.

Federalist #78 and the Importance of Judicial Precedent

Blue Cereal — Fri, 22 Jul 2022 12:31:48 +0000

We might debate whether or not Hamilton was correct to consider the judicial branch the “weakest” of the three, but the more important point here is that lifetime appointments of justices was intended to provide consistency in the nation’s highest court. Notice also his assumption that one of the primary purposes of the Court is to protect the “general liberty of the people” and act as the “citadel of the public justice and the public security.” While Hamilton was speaking primarily of national government (it would almost a century before constitutional protections were automatically assumed to apply at the state and local level as well via the Fourteenth Amendment), this understanding of the judicial branch is antithetical to the idea that defending the Constitution requires stripping away established protections in order to better facilitate state-level abuse of personal liberties.

Stomping Decisis / A Matter of Degrees (Introduction)

Blue Cereal — Tue, 12 Jul 2022 17:21:00 +0000

NOTE: I’m toying with the idea of a follow-up volume to both “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases and “Have To” History: A Wall of Separation. The working title is Stomping Decisis (I’ll probably change it if I can think of something better) and the central subject would be major Supreme Court decisions of … Continue reading

Carson v. Makin (Analysis & Carrying On, Part Two)

Blue Cereal — Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:36:56 +0000

Enabling an institution to do whatever it does by providing public services is as neutral as government can get. Those road crews don’t jump in and do repairs on the sanctuary or mosque as part of their job because that would be "establishment” – active support of specific religious activities or institutions. For them to avoid maintaining any streets which pass near a church, however, would be to deny “free exercise” – actively making it difficult for believers to partake in whatever partakery is at hand.

What the Court has done in Carson v. Makin is a substantial step further. They’ve demanded that states providing any sort of choice or flexibility in their school systems must offer comparable support for religious indoctrination in place of some of that education. They’re requiring tax dollars designated for preparing young people to function competently in a modern, diverse, complex world, be redirected to teach homophobia, science denial, sexism, misogyny, alternative history, or whatever else might be trending that week in right-wing curriculums.

Carson v. Makin (Analysis & Carrying On, Part One)

Blue Cereal — Tue, 28 Jun 2022 13:24:16 +0000

A few days ago, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Carson v. Makin, a case involving state support of religious education in rural Maine. The short version is that states which offer any sort of support for private schooling or alternatives to state-run public schools cannot deny equivalent support to religious institutions claiming a … Continue reading

Carson v. Makin (My Free Exercise Can Beat Up Your Wall of Separation)

Blue Cereal — Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:21:34 +0000

Well, any pretense Chief Justice John Roberts has been maintaining about being in any way “moderate” or “reasonable” seems to have been blown to hell this week. The Court’s decision in Carson v. Makin (2022) accelerates the jurisprudential slide away from the proverbial “wall of separation” and elevates the “free exercise” of the minority with … Continue reading

The Decision (Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990 – Part Two)

Blue Cereal — Sun, 18 Jul 2021 12:20:47 +0000

1. The Equal Access Act of 1984 prohibited any public school which permitted “non-curricular” clubs to meet on school property from picking and choosing which clubs they allowed based on ideologies or beliefs. The trick was figuring out what counted as “non-curricular.”

2. Bridget Mergens was a student at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska. In 1985, she asked her principal for permission to form a Christian club at the school.

3. The school said no, arguing that organizations like Chess Club and Scuba Club were essentially (if not directly) curriculum-related in that they were extensions of the sorts of things the school promoted as a whole, and thus inadequate to trigger the requirements of the act. Bridget didn’t buy it.

Eventually, the case ended up in the Supreme Court. You probably won't be surprised how it turned out.