Presentation Transcript

1. Free Exercise Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972
2. Free Exercise 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, the USA cannot have an official religion or prevent someone from practicing their religion. The 14th Amendment also makes this clause binding on the states.
3. Free Exercise (cont.) Beliefs do not necessarily need to be stated in traditional terms; examples today include Scientology, Neo-Pagan/New Age faiths, and various others. Religion is broadly defined, primarily due to the sheer number of faiths and denominations and because of the way they change over time.
4. Limits to Free Exercise Employers may not discriminate against other religions Religious expression may not pose a threat or infringe upon the rights of other citizens No polygamy, ritual sacrifice of humans, basically any violence towards oneself or another for religious purposes…
5. Jacobson v. Massachussetts Background In 1902, there was an outbreak of smallpox in Cambridge. In response, a MA statute allowed the city to make vaccinations required for all adults to prevent the spread of the disease. The fine for refusing the vaccine was $5 (worth about $100 dollars today)
6. Jacobson v. Massachusetts Background 1905- A citizen challenged the government’s right to make vaccinations mandatory after a smallpox outbreak in 1902. Jacobson claimed he’d had a bad reaction to the vaccine and appealed to the Supreme Court. Question: Does a mandatory vaccination law violate the Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty?
7. Decision The Supreme Court held that the law was an exercise of the state’s right to protect its citizens from a public health threat. Justice Harlan: “Liberty is not “an absolute right in each person to be, in all times and in all circumstances, wholly free from restraint.” However, the law does not apply to those who can prove that their health/life will be legitimately jeopardized by vaccination.
8. Consequences of the Decision The state may be justified in restricting individual liberty “under the pressure of great dangers” to “the safety of the general public.” Zucht v. King, 1922: The Supreme Court upheld a city ordinance that required all students to have a smallpox vaccination in order to attend any public or private school.
9. Consequences of the Decision (cont.) Buck v Bell, 1927: The US Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that authorized the involuntary sterilization of “feeble minded” persons in state institutions. Jacobson v. Massachusetts was cited for this case in order to support the idea that involuntary sterilization of mentally unfit people is allowable for the benefit of the public.
10. Consequences of the Decision (Cont.) Today, it is likely that laws requiring vaccinations would be upheld if (1) the infectious disease still existed in the population and (2) the vaccine is safe and FDA approved. In North Carolina, all students are required to have vaccinations for tetanus, diptheria, and pertussis (TDAP), polio, measles, etc.
11. Wisconsin v. Yoder Background A Wisconsin law required all children under 16 to attend public school. Most Amish groups discontinue formal education by age 13 or 14. American public high schools strive to teach a certain level of accomplishment and self-determination that contrasts with Amish values, which stress humility and manual labor.
12. Wisconsin v. Yoder Background, Cont. Three Amish families challenged the law by claiming it violated their freedom of religion. For refusing to obey the law, the families were each fined $5. The Amish tend to “turn the other cheek” and the families paid the fine, but a Lutheran minister who heard of their struggle provided them with legal counsel and the case went to the Supreme Court.
13. Decision The Wisconsin Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court both voted in favor of Yoder. The Court ruled that the law violated the families’ right to free exercise. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger: the values of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion." The vote was unanimous (7-0) (Both Rehnquist and Powell were absent).
14. Consequences of the Decision Amish communities are generally exempt from compulsory education laws on religious grounds. The case seems to have had little effect on anyone besides the Amish; most other religious groups are not exempt from compulsory education. Groups/parents in other states have tried but few have succeeded.
15. Consequences of the Decision Amish children, upon turning 16, go through a Rumspringa (run around) in which they are allowed to experience life outside their community in the modern world to determine where they want to spend the rest of their lives. However, because of their lack of high school education, their options are strictly limited to those within their communities.
16. Sources Adler, Adam. “Wisconsin v. Yoder: Maximizing Religious Choice.” Stanford University. 2008. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/undergrad/cgibin/drupal_ual/sites/default/files/common/docs/ihum_fall08_winner.pdf Annas, George J.; Glantz, Leonard H.; Mariner, Wendy K. “Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your Great-Great-Grandfather’s Public Health Law.” American Journal of Public Health. Apr. 2005. Web. 18 Mar 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ "First Amendment (United States Constitution) : Related Rights." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/208044/First-Amendment JACOBSON v. MASSACHUSETTS. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 18 Mar. 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1904/1904_70>. Mullally, Claire. "Free Exercise Clause Overview." First Amendment Center. First Amendment Center, 16 Sept. 2011. Web. 21 Mar. 2013. <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/free-exercise-clause>. WISCONSIN v. YODER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_110