The First Amendment clause guides the relationship between the State and Religion.[1]. The approach was refined by Lemon Test V. Kurtzman, which expounds on three principles that guide government actions towards the State. The Establishment clause shapes the role of churches in democratic states and ensures that government policies don’t interfere with religious activities. The First Amendment restricts the government’s action to establish a State religion and protect individual rights to practice their religion. The research paper seeks to substantiate that the coercion test is the best test alternative to the lemon test[2]. The lemon test approach has been utilized for a long time and has vulnerabilities that can be compensated with the coercion test approach. There are multiple cases that evidence lemon test vulnerabilities, such as Bowell V. Hobby Lobby (2014), Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) case, and Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018). The assessment delves into protecting the rights of individuals to practice their religion within proper State and Religious group interactions.
The Lemon Test approach was formulated in 1971 to establish whether legislation contradicts the establishment clause. The test was established after Supreme Court Case Lemon v. Kurtzman and was utilized in many cases to assess the legality of government actions on religious practices.[3]. The Lemon test (1971) undertook a tripartite test to assess the establishment clause violations.[4]. The first test is whether the primary purpose of assistance is secular. The second is that any assistance must not promote or inhibit religion.[5]. The third is limiting extensive entanglement between Church and State[6]. The tripartite test has been a strategy to ensure that the Church and State maintain boundaries. The State has to ensure that any business with the Church has a secular purpose and predominantly leads to secular effects. The test ensures that the Church and State don’t foster excessive entanglement, which can compromise their unique mandates.
Literature Review
The literature analysis delves into assessing the alternative tests to substantiate which gives a better outcome. The five alternative tests include non-preferential, endorsement, social conflict, neutrality & private choice, and coercion.[7]. The alternative tests are put into perspective below.
The non-preferential standard testing for interpreting the First Amendment gives a positive neutrality relationship between Church and State affairs.[8]. It is showcased in Justice Rehnquist’s dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985). The Court rejected the Alabama law allowing teachers to instruct students to pray in classroom moments of silence[9]. The case showcased the establishment clause to limit having a ‘National Religion.’ The establishment clause also deters the federal government from favoring a religion.[10]. Many separationists are more likely to express hostility towards the Church, thus advocating for non-preferential accommodations.
Alternative endorsement testing interprets the establishment clause that a government action endorses or disapproves of religion.[11]. The act violates the establishment clause, which denotes that the State cannot favor or disregard a religion.[12]. The endorsement test restricts the State’s actions to avoid adhering to a religion that can compromise people’s choices. The favoritism state actions compromise non-adherence to prefer one religion over the other, breaching the establishment clause on government action influence on churches.[13].
The Coercion alternative testing assesses the government practices that violate the establishment clause.[14]. The test ensures that each law has a secular legislative purpose and examines the cause and effect of religion.[15]. The coercion test alternative is showcased in the County of Allegheny V. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), in the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled on the constitutionality of Christmas and Hanukkah holiday displays. The case showcases that the first violation was placing a nativity scene in the Allegheny County courthouse staircase. The second display is the placement of the Menorah next to a decorated Christmas tree. In reference to Justice Kennedy, the case has two limiting factors: government action shouldn’t coerce any person to participate in a religion.[16]. The second is that government actions should not, in avoiding hostility, offer a direct benefit to a religion that leads to establishing a religious faith.[17].
The social conflict alternative testing on the establishment clause is on the rising number of religious groups, which can lead to a power struggle. The increasing number of religious groups can lead to struggle when government actions favor one religion over others.[18]. The alternative testing standard is evidenced in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris’s (2002) case, which assesses whether public funding can be directed to religiously affiliated schools. The case was significant because of State restrictions to fund religious groups to avert favoritism.[19]. The social conflict alternative test showcases the uproar and struggle among religious groups to attract the State’s favor and can lead to conflict.
The neutrality and private choice alternative testing standard interprets the establishment clause that seeks to refrain from State actions to prefer sectarianism, denomination, favoritism, and exclusivity.[20]. The need for neutral actions requires investment in private alternatives that don’t incriminate the government. The case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) caused discontentment by restricting the government from funding religious-affiliated schools.[21].
Analysis of the Best Alternative Standard
The State and Church’s distinct operations should be addressed appropriately to evade future conflicts. The first amendment developed two provisions that dictate the State and Church relationship. The first provision is the establishment clause which refrains the State from establishing a national religion.[22]. The second provision is the free exercise clause, which safeguards individuals’ rights to practice religion without interference. The first and second provisions often clash, requiring the best alternative test standard to interpret and protect the first amendment.[23].
The assessment process indicates that the coercion test alternative standard is best compared to the Lemon test and others. The importance of coercion tests is to ensure that citizens are protected from coercion or compelled to participate religiously.[24]. The coercion test assesses the government’s involvement in compelling individuals to engage in a specific religious group. The State action is interpreted to have deviated from the establishment clause by intimidating the citizens to get involved with specific religions. Second, the importance of the coercion test is to assess government actions that directly benefit a specific religious group.[25]. The test ensures the State abides by the establishment clause that deters government actions from directly benefiting a specific religious group to establish a State religion. Establishing a State religion violates the first amendment by having a clear distinction between government and church mandates. Third, the importance of the coercion test is to balance the State’s involvement with individual citizens and the many religious groups.[26]. The balance between managing the religious groups to avoid conflicts and giving individuals the autonomy to choose their religions enables government actions to abide by the first amendment. The coercion test ensures the State and Church relations do not overlap and maintain their distinctive nature. Fourth, the importance of the coercion test is having a different approach to assessing government policies and actions.[27]. Compared to the endorsement test, it struck down government policies that tangentially benefited religion. The endorsement test went a notch higher than the lemon test facial inquiry and broadened the Court’s power to scrutinize government actions. The advantage of the Coercion test is enquiring further to assess the force and actual effect of State actions instead of invalidating an action due to directly benefiting religion.
Thus, the coercion test is the best test alternative to interpret the establishment clause. The clause sets a clear demarcation between the church and State activities but requires improvement, such as exploring private choices to avoid a constitutional violation.[28]. The coercion test should allow the government to fund private entities that can be non-discriminatory in funding religious groups.[29]. The government’s actions to favor one religion may harm society, but serving all non-discriminatively can ensure neutrality.
DISCUSSION
Issues with the Lemon Test
Proponents of the other test alternative standard for the establishment clause have criticized the lemon test approach. The first criticism of the lemon test is a facial inquiry into government actions toward religious groups.[30]. The facial inquiry indicates that the lemon test law needs a more intensive analysis of government policies that affect religious practices. In reference to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), which involves the Green Family representative of Holly Lobby Stores, Inc., which is based on Christian Faith and believed that contraception is immoral[31]. The company had denied their employees’ health coverage of contraception due to their personal beliefs. The Court had ruled in favor of Hotel Lobby stores denying contraception coverage to employees based on employers’ religious objections. The court ruling showcases the face-inquiry nature of the lemon test due to not protecting the employee’s right to gain medical coverage due to religious obligations. The court ruling denotes an entanglement between the State and Church functions, which is not recommended in the third prong of the First Amendment.[32]. In contrast with the Coercion test alternative, the approach gives a cause-and-effect approach to assessing government actions toward religious groups. The coercion test, on the overhand, allows the Court to assess the action to establish a national religion.[33]. In the case of the Hotel Lobby stores, the decision to grant the workers contraception medical coverage should have been the ideal solution.
Second, the lemon test provides a broad interpretation of the establishment clause. The Court ruled 8-1 in Lemon v. Kurtzman against Pennsylvania and Rhode Island for violating the first amendment due to providing funds to religiously affiliated schools. The approach is restrictive and limits government assistance to religious schools, which private entities can undertake.[34]. The broad approach of the lemon test allows the judges to have personally biased opinions on cases. In contrast to the coercion test, the approach allows the Court to assess infringement of the establishment clause, which assesses instituting a one-state religion.[35]. Schools’ direct funding must be assessed and established to coincide with religious activities. The government can use non-discriminative sources to fund religious schools in this case. It is crucial to note the need to fund secular and religious schools without influencing individuals to favor one religion or adhere to a specific religious group.
Third, the lemon test fails to indicate a distinct State and Church functions assessment. The obvious pitfall of the lemon test is an assumption that religious purpose renders a statute unconstitutional.[36]. The Statute proposes that a law passed with a religious purpose shouldn’t be automatically deemed unconstitutional. The approach exemplifies murder and theft, which have not been denounced despite being inscribed in religious teachings.[37]. In contrast with the Coercion test, a religious statute is not unconstitutional due to religious affiliations. The approach ensures that the Statute violates establishment and a self-practice clause that infringes an individual’s rights and favors one religion.[38].
Fourth, the lemon test has vulnerabilities, leading to the judges’ personal biases. Lee v. Weisman (1992) showcases a court ruling to substantiate that religious practice at the school graduation had violated the establishment clause. The principal had given the students a guideline to make the prayers non-sectarian. The act violated the First Amendment establishment clause by controlling the prayer, even if it was an effort to make it secular. The lemon test approach should be assessed and corrected to provide an in-depth approach to distinguish the State and Church relations. In contrast with the coercion test, the personal biases of judges are restricted to ensure fair judgments. The coercion test assesses government policies’ influences on church functions and seeks to understand the cause of the actions. The approach thus would be less restrictive for the principal to conduct prayers in school as long it doesn’t directly violate the establishment clause.
Assessment of Pros and Cons of the Alternative Tests
The pros of non-preferential include forbidding government action from favoring one religion. The approach gives a transparent approach that curtails the government from establishing a State Church.[39]. Second, the test establishes a neural approach to the relationship between State affairs and Church functions. Third, the alternative test focuses on the free exercise clause that ensures citizens can choose their religion. The critiques of the non-preferential test alternative entail utilizing the restrictive approach to establishing relations between the State and Church. The test alternative prefers the State to not favor one religion over the other and from favoring religion to non-religion. The case of Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) showcases the restriction to prohibit students from conducting prayers and bible readings. Second, the alternative testing approach undertakes a strict separationist approach integrated with non-preferential, thus eliminating Church and State relations.[40]. The alternative tests cover all religions; hence the government cannot interact with any religion. In contrast to the Coercion test, alternative government actions assess the cause and effect of breaching the establishment and free exercise clause.[41]. The non-preferential approach has strict restrictions to eliminate any relations with the government. Thus, utilizing the Coercion approach would enable students in public schools to conduct prayers and bible reading sessions to practice their freedom of worship.
The pros of the endorsement test alternative entail eliminating government actions violating the establishment clause. The government is restricted from approving or disapproving of a single religion that can influence the people. Second, citizens with knowledge of legislative history and statutes should refrain from interpreting government actions to favor religion. Critiques of the endorsement alternative test encompass the need to define the “reasonable observer” that interprets government actions to favor one religion over another.[42]. The lack of Supreme Court guidance has led to lower courts making incorrect rulings that have become challenging to reconcile. The second critique is that the endorsement test alternative gives broad discretion to the Judiciary.[43]. The test alternative proves unworkable as a desirable constitutional criterion. In contrast, with Coercion alternative test focus on assessing the government’s actions violating the establishment clause. The approach determines the force and threat to compel citizens to engage in worshipping activities.[44]. The coercion test gives the liberty to assess government action to coerce citizens intentionally to choose between religion and non-religion directly. Thus, offering a more direct approach to court analysis than the endorsement test alternative approach.
The pros of social conflict test alternatives are to manage the growing religious group by ensuring honest government and Church relations. The increasing number of religious groups can result in conflict if government action favors one religion over others.[45]. Thus, ensuring all religious groups are in harmony and receiving equal treatment from the government. Second, the social conflict test alternative ensures that the government maintains the national social fabric.[46]. The maintenance of harmony is due to equally treating the different religious creeds that have more mass following. The critiques of the Social conflict test alternative assume that State decisions should create an honest approach but fail to consider other variables that influence religious groups.[47]. The test alternative focuses on restricting government actions to create harmony among religious creeds. In contrast with coercion, test alternatives assess the State’s force or compulsion to attend a specific church. The approach can be direct through force and indirect through implementing sanctions. Thus, the coercion test alternative assesses more variables, not only ensuring the different religious creeds avoid religious-based conflict.
The pros for neutrality and the private choice test alternative are that it provides a neutral approach to respect and fund religion without breaching the establishment clause. The test alternative allows the State to indulge in Church affairs by utilizing the private options to fund religious schools.[48]. Second, the test alternative integrates the private sector with the government to sustain religious group activities. The involvement of a broad class of citizens in funding religious schools eliminates deviation from the establishment clause. The critique of neutrality and private choice test alternative creates different approaches for State affairs to influence the Church functions indirectly. The involvement of private parties would make it legal, but in the end, the State has to favor one religious group over others[49]. Therefore, the approach indirectly violates the establishment clause restricting States’ influence on Church activities. In contrast with the Coercion test alternative, the need to assess the cause and effect of government actions would restrict the power to fund religious schools selectively. The test alternative gives a direct and indirect approach that can be utilized to favor religious groups. The direct approach involves force and indirect coercion through sanctions, which includes threatening to refrain from financing religious schools to influence the Church to undertake government activities.
Improvement of Coercion Alternative Test
The coercion alternative test best ensures a separate relationship between the State and Church functions. However, the coercion test requires slight improvement to give stringent measures that properly separate government actions from intruding on Church activities.
The Coercion test requires incorporating a balance of rights which assesses the equality in understanding the citizens’ rights. In reference to Justice Robert Jackson in 1944, states that the limit to freedom begins to operate whenever activities affect the liberties of the public[50]. The intensely interrelated culture leads to affect others early in existence. The intense debate on gay rights vs. religious liberty has led to division among the people concerning religious practices—the attempt to make the constitution recognize same-sex marriage on similar terms as recognizing man and woman reunion[51]. The coercion test should incorporate the people’s rights balance to ensure just rulings for the courts. It should be able to recognize the rights of people in society, such as the LGBTQ+ community. The balance of rights steers the court tribunal from making just decisions and balancing religious liberty with other people’s rights[52]. In reference to the religious liberty war by James Madison and Tara Helfwan denotes the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 that asserts government ought not to compel an individual’s act against religious principles unless there is a government interest demand, and the approach is narrow to serve the particular interest[53]. The Statute has become an issue to the people and has been labeled a dangerous and terrible mistake[54]. A good example is the Sherbert v. Verner (1963) case, whereby Adeil Sherbert, a believer in the Seventh Adventist Church (SDA)’s job contract, was terminated because of refusing to work on Saturday. Seventh Day Adventist Church prefers to worship on Saturdays. The Employment Security Commission ruled against Sherbert receiving employment benefits due to her refusal to work on Saturdays. The discrimination informs the importance of balancing rights as a test requirement for coercion to balance religious liberty and other people’s rights.
Analysis of THE New Coercion Test to Past Cases that IMPLEMENTED THE Lemon Test Approach
The assessment of the new coercion test applied to past cases that utilized the lemon test approach is based on authenticating the difference in the outcome. The selected four cases delve into assessing the similarity and differences of the lemon test approach in guiding the ruling on State and religion-based cases. The four cases showcase the States interference in religious matters with a strategy to correct the approach and ensure impartial judgment. The cases highlight the importance of coercion to examine the cause and effect of direct and indirect government actions. The new coercion test adheres to the principle of Ensuring that citizens are protected from coercion or compelled to participate religiously, assessing government actions that directly benefit a specific religious group, balance the State’s involvement with individual citizens and the many religious groups, and have a different approach to assessing government policies and actions.
The first case analysis is the Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) case, which indicates that Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, who are religious faithful to Amish religion, and Adin Yutz, a congregant of the Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under Wisconsin law for deterring their children from joining public school until 16 years[55]. The parents stopped sending their kids to public school beyond 8th grade because they believed high school attendance was against their religious practices[56]. Implementing the lemon test in the case elaborates criticism of the test to enable judges to input personal biases in giving rulings. The judges were more inclined to support the Amish religion despite the need for the child to continue with high school education. The Court ruled unanimously, and Justice Warren Burger reaffirmed the support for adherence to religious beliefs amid the concern for the children to join high school education due to Amish religious demands.
The new coercion judges will look at the facts based on protecting the rights of the children to attend school. The judges will make the decision based on the balance of the State’s involvement with individual citizens and the many religious groups. The Court has to ensure that the State doesn’t promote any religion and undertakes an honest approach. The judges must consider that additional modern education beyond 8th grade is good for the students to survive in contemporary American society. Thus the judges ought to protect their right to education and ensure they aren’t a burden to society. The Amis religion parents shouldn’t practice their religion to the extent of depriving their kids’ of education, which is against balancing their freedom.
The new coercion test enables judges to have facts that lead to a different outcome by considering the importance of the children gaining education in public schools as they are mandated to have equal rights to free education. The coercion test enables the judges to assess the cause and effect of ruling—the personal biases of the judges’ risks of mixing State duties with religious activities. The coercion test would have given the child priority to continue with education and not support Amish religious beliefs.
The second case is the Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990) case, whereby two counselors ingested illegal drugs during Native American Church ceremonies[57]. As a result, the two counselors were fired and were denied unemployment compensation due to work-related misconduct. The use of the lemon test in the case showcases the facial inquiry approach of the test to guide the rulings. The U.S. Supreme Court needed to assess the significance of the two counselors observing their religious ceremonies. The State Appellate revised the denial of benefits due to violating First Amendment to exercise religion freely, but U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision. The final ruling by the Court showcased a 6-3 majority outcome in favor of the Employment Division.[58]. The lemon test approach restricts the courts to have a primary purpose of assistance, which must be secular. The lemon test’s facial nature restricts the Court from protecting the counselors’ unemployment compensation rights.
The new coercion test will make the judges analyze facts that entail the State’s interest in failing to exempt the religious use of Peyote. The judges will decide based on a different approach to assessing government policies and actions. The judges would consider that the State ignored the exempt use of the drug for religious purposes and focused on winning the war on drugs. Thus developing a competing interest between the State and the two counselors. Oregon hadn’t prosecuted any person for using Peyote for religious purposes. The new coercion test seeks to eliminate States making decisions based on competing interests.
The new coercion test will give facts to judges and lead to a different outcome of protecting the counselors’ unemployment compensation. The coercion test approach would undertake an in-depth assessment of the cause and effect of the counselors’ actions. The two counselors’ were obliged to undertake the ceremony since they were members of the religious group. The counselors have the freedom to exercise their religion, which breaches the free exercise clause in addition to the fact that religious acts did not infringe on other people’s rights or cause any direct harm. Thus, in this case, in favor of the counselor’s religious claims should have protected their unemployment compensation despite being fired from their jobs.
The third case is the Bowell V. Hobby Lobby (2014) case, whereby Green, a representative of Hobby Lobby Stores, sued Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, to challenge contraception requirements[59]. The healthcare plan requirement to include contraception did not align with Hobby Lobby store owners’ religious beliefs. Thus, the for-profit organization thought to refuse health coverage. The use of the lemon test in court rulings showcases the facial inquiry nature of the approach. The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby which states that the RFRA allows for-profit companies (Hobby Lobby Stores) to deny their employee contraception health coverage[60]. The court ruling showcases the face-inquiry nature of the lemon test due to not protecting the employee’s right to gain medical coverage due to religious obligations. The court ruling denotes an entanglement between the State and Church functions, which is not recommended in the third prong of the First Amendment.
The new coercion test will make the judges consider facts on the government sticking to the mandate to offer proper health insurance coverage to protect female employees. The judges will decide based on assessing government actions that directly benefit a specific religious group. The judges must consider the State’s need to utilize the least restrictive approach to good health coverage. A corporation (For-Profit Company) such as Hobby Lobby Stores cannot be disguised as an individual that can exercise freedom of religion. The new coercion test seeks to protect female employees’ rights to contraception health insurance. Therefore, the facts restrict Hobby Lobby store owners from forcing their religious practices on company employees.
Using the new coercion test will make judges assess the cause and effect of the ruling. The ruling favoring Hobby Lobby stores would mean violating the First Amendment on states promoting specific religious group practices. Thus the decision violates the second and third prongs of the First Amendment. The coercion test has to consider the effect of the ruling to ensure the State sticks to secular issues. The decision to favor the Department of Health and Human Services over Hobby Lobby Stores is in line with not promoting any religious practices. The coercion would resist the plan Hotel Lobby Stores, forcing their employee to forego their contraceptive medical insurance on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The fourth case is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), which involved Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who went to Masterpiece Cake Shop and requested a same-sex marriage cake[61]. Jack Philips, the shop owner, declined to make the cake because of his religious beliefs disqualifying same-sex marriage. The two gay lovers filed charges of discrimination based on sexual orientation[62]. Using the lemon test in the case gives the judges a broad interpretation approach that allows personal biases in rulings, which has led to the ruling in favor of Master Cakeshop and promoting a religious group. The Court’s decision was 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cake Shop with no breach to serving gay couples. In creating the cakes, the Court believed that Philip served as a form of artistic expression and a sign of sincere beliefs.
The new coercion test enables the judges to analyze the facts based on being religiously neutral. The judges decide based on ensuring that citizens are protected from coercion or compelled to participate in religious groups. The judges must consider the customers’ hostility towards Philip’s religious beliefs. But the Court has to take the religiously neutral approach by considering that the relationship between a buyer and seller is to interact to exchange goods and services. The new coercion test focuses on balancing the rights of individuals to ensure impartiality.
Using new coercion tests will make judges assess the cause-and-effect facts of the rulings. The coercion test approach enables the judges to assess the case using direct and indirect approaches. Master Cake Shop had violated the right to serve its customers based on religious affiliations. Thus the Court would have determined the matter as discrimination and an attempt to promote a religious group. Allowing religious discrimination, as the lemon test ruling, leads to a coercive effect in which gay couples must adhere to a religious belief they do not associate with. The intense debate on gay rights vs. religious liberty has led to division among the people concerning religious practices—the attempt to make the constitution recognize same-sex marriage on similar terms as recognizing man and woman reunion[63]. The coercion test should incorporate the people’s rights balance to ensure just rulings for the courts. It should be able to recognize the rights of people in society, such as the LGBTQ+ community.
The fifth case, evidenced in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris’s (2002) case, assesses whether public funding can be directed to religiously affiliated schools. The case was significant because of State restrictions to fund religious groups to avert favoritism[64]. The social conflict alternative test showcases the uproar and struggle among religious groups to attract the State’s favor and can lead to conflict. The judges’ decision favored Zielman because Ohio’s program is part of the citizens’ program to assist children.
The new coercion test will make the judges look at the facts based on religious schools receiving funds from private citizens. The judges will decide based on assessing government actions that directly benefit a specific religious group. The judges must consider that education is emancipation which means light and liberty. Every child must receive the gift of education, and children have been forced into a financing system that continuously fails them.
Using a new coercion test will make the judges agree that the government’s actions didn’t breach the First amendment. The coercion test leads judges to incorporate a balance of rights which assesses equality in understanding the citizens’ rights. In reference to Justice Robert Jackson, in 1944, stated that the limit to freedom begins to operate whenever activities affect the liberties of the public[65].
The sixth case Lee V. Weisman (1992), delves into petitioner Robert Lee a Middle School Principal who had invited a rabbi to preach at the school graduation day. The respondent Daniel Weisman had a daughter named Deborah in the school, and they were determined to stop Rabbi from preaching on the school graduation day[66]. Thus, Weismann sought a temporary restraining order from the District Court but was denied permission. After the ceremony, Weisman filed for a permanent injunction barring Lee and other public schools from inviting clergies to deliver summons in school ceremonies. Using the lemon test approach led the judges to rule a 5-4 decision favoring Weisman based on government involvement in establishing a State-Sponsored religion[67].
The new coercion test will guide the judges to conquer with the Lemon test approach based on indirectly coercing students to adhere to the principles of a specific religion. The judges must consider that the students must stand respectfully and silently[68]. Thus forcing the students to act in a particular manner to establish a State religion. The decision is based on restricting government actions to benefit a specific religion.
The new coercion test enables judges to adhere to facts restricting the States power to promote a specific religion. The intention of the school principal to favor one religion during the school graduation ceremony amidst many students acts as indirect coercion. The students are instructed to keep quiet and follow the teaching of one specific religion despite having diverse religious beliefs.
CONCLUSION
The assessment indicates that the new coercion test is a proper alternative to a lemon test—the establishment clause restricts the government from developing a national religion. The new coercion test adheres to the principle of Ensuring that citizens are protected from coercion or compelled to participate religiously, assess government actions that directly benefit a specific religious group, balance the State’s involvement with individual citizens and the many religious groups, and have a different approach to assessing government policies and actions. The approach has different rulings to cases such as Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) case and Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) case.
Works Cited
Alembik, Marcia S.2005.“The Future of the Lemon Test: A Sweeter Alternative for Establishment Clause Analysis.” Ga. L. Rev.
Antieau, Chester J. “The Limitation of Religious Liberty
Blackman, Josh. 2009. “The lemon comes as a lemon: the Lemon Test and the pursuit of a statute’s secular purpose.” Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts.
Blackman, Josh. 2009. “The Lemon Comes as a Lemon: The Lemon Test and the Pursuit of a Statute’s Secular Purpose.” George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 20: 351. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/gmcvr20&div=18&id=&page.
Cole, David.2015. “The angry new frontier: Gay rights vs. religious liberty.” NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS 62.
Duke, John. 2015. “Religious Freedom and the Little Corporation That Could: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.” Mississippi College Law Review 34: 89. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/miscollr34&div=9&id=&page=.
Epstein, Lee, Kevin T. McGuire, and Thomas G. Walker.2021.Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice. C.Q. Press, 2021.
Esbeck, Carl H.1989.“The Lemon test should be retained, reformulated, or rejected.” Notre Dame JL Ethics & Pub. Pol’y.
Helfman, Tara.2015.“The Religious-Liberty War.” COMMENTARY 139, no. 5.
Janssen, William M.2012. “Toiling in the Lemon Groves: Prelude to the Endorsement Test.” Charleston L. Rev. 7.
Kahn, Ronald C. 1992.”God Save Us from the Coercion Test: Constitutive Decision making, Polity Principles, and Religious Freedom.” Case W. Res. L. Rev.
Koppelman, Andrew.2012. “Endorsing the Endorsement Test.” Charleston L. Rev. 7.
Linas, Christopher.2010. “Salazar v. Buono: A Blow against the Endorsement Test’s Core Principle.” Denv. UL Rev.
Perrin, Marilyn. “Lee v. Weisman: Unanswered Prayers.” Pepp. L. Rev. 21 (1993): 207.
Peterson, Matthew A.2001.“The Supreme Court’s coercion test: Insufficient constitutional protection for America’s religious minorities.” Cornell JL & Pub.
Rahe, Laura T. 2002. “Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and the Private Choice Doctrine.” Clev. St. L. Rev. 50.
Rennie, Timothy. 2018. “Constitutional Law – Let Them Eat Cake – Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018).” Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy 24: 315. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/sujoriapv24&div=26&id=&page=.
Smith, Rodney K.2012. “Nonpreferentialism in Establishment Clause Analysis: A Response to Professor Laycock.” St. John’s Law Review 65.
Weiss, Arthur A. 1972. “Constitutional Law–Amish Religion vs. State Interest in Education.” Journal of Urban Law 50: 493. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/udetmr50&div=41&id=&page=.
Whitehead, John W. 1997. “Religious Freedom in the Nineties: Betwixt and between Flores and Smith.” Washburn Law Journal 37: 105. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wasbur37&div=18&id=&page=.
Zilberfein, Paul S. 1992. “Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith: The Erosion of Religious Liberty.” Pace L. Rev. 12 (1992): 403.
[1] Kevin. L. Epstein, Walker. G. Thomas, Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice, 2021 (C.Q. Press, 2021) 98.
[2] Kevin. L. Epstein, Walker. G. Thomas, Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice, 2021 (C.Q. Press, 2021) 99.
[3] Josh Blackman, the Lemon Comes as a Lemon (George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, 2009) 353.
[4] William Janssen, Toiling in the Lemon Groves (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 692.
[5] William Janssen, Toiling in the Lemon Groves (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 695.
[6] William Janssen, Toiling in the Lemon Groves (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 696.
[7] William Janssen, Toiling in the Lemon Groves (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 697.
[8] Rodney Smith, Nonpreferentialism in Establishment Clause Analysis: A Response to Professor Laycock (St. John’s Law Review, 2012) 246.
[9] Rodney Smith, Nonpreferentialism in Establishment Clause Analysis: A Response to Professor Laycock (St. John’s Law Review, 2012) 248.
[10] Rodney Smith, Nonpreferentialism in Establishment Clause Analysis: A Response to Professor Laycock (St. John’s Law Review, 2012) 251.
[11] Andrew Koppelman, Endorsing the Endorsement Test (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 720.
[12] Andrew Koppelman, Endorsing the Endorsement Test (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 721.
[13] Christopher Linas, Salazar v. Buono: A Blow against the Endorsement Test’s Core Principle (Denv. UL Rev, 2010) 605.
[14] Mathew Petterson, The Supreme Court’s coercion test: Insufficient constitutional protection for America’s religious minorities (Cornell JL & Pub, 2001) 246.
[15] Mathew Petterson, The Supreme Court’s coercion test: Insufficient constitutional protection for America’s religious minorities (Cornell JL & Pub, 2001) 248.
[16] Mathew Petterson, The Supreme Court’s coercion test: Insufficient constitutional protection for America’s religious minorities (Cornell JL & Pub, 2001) 249.
[17] Mathew Petterson, The Supreme Court’s coercion test: Insufficient constitutional protection for America’s religious minorities (Cornell JL & Pub, 2001) 250.
[18] John Whitehead, Religious Freedom in the Nineties: Betwixt and between Flores and Smith (Washburn Law Journal, 1997) 107.
[19] John Whitehead, Religious Freedom in the Nineties: Betwixt and between Flores and Smith (Washburn Law Journal, 1997)112.
[20]Laura Rahe, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and the Private Choice Doctrine (Clev. St. L. Rev, 2002) 222.
[21] Laura Rahe, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and the Private Choice Doctrine (Clev. St. L. Rev, 2002) 223.
[22] Kevin. L. Epstein, Walker. G. Thomas, Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice, 2021 (C.Q. Press, 2021) 97.
[23] Kevin. L. Epstein, Walker. G. Thomas, Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice, 2021 (C.Q. Press, 2021) 98.
[24] Ronald Kahn, God Save us from Coercion Test (Case W. Res. L. Rev, 1992) 985.
[25] Ronald Kahn, God Save us from Coercion Test (Case W. Res. L. Rev, 1992) 987.
[26] Mathew Petterson, The Supreme Court’s coercion test: Insufficient constitutional protection for America’s religious minorities (Cornell JL & Pub, 2001) 252.
[27] Mathew Petterson, The Supreme Court’s coercion test: Insufficient constitutional protection for America’s religious minorities (Cornell JL & Pub, 2001) 258.
[28] William Janssen, Toiling in the Lemon Groves (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 696.
[29] William Janssen, Toiling in the Lemon Groves (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 698.
[30] Carl Esbeck, the Lemon test: should it be retained, reformulated or rejected (Notre Dame JL Ethics & Pub. Pol’y, 1989) 536.
[31] Marcia Alembik, the Future of the Lemon Test: A Sweeter Alternative for Establishment Clause Analysis (Ga. L. Rev, 2005) 120.
[32] Josh Blackman, the Lemon Comes as a Lemon (George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, 2009) 355.
[33] Josh Blackman, the Lemon Comes as a Lemon (George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, 2009) 407.
[34] William Janssen, Toiling in the Lemon Groves (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 703.
[35] Ronald Kahn, God Save us from Coercion Test (Case W. Res. L. Rev, 1992) 995.
[36] Carl Esbeck, the Lemon test: should it be retained, reformulated or rejected (Notre Dame JL Ethics & Pub. Pol’y, 1989) 545.
[37] Marcia Alembik, the Future of the Lemon Test: A Sweeter Alternative for Establishment Clause Analysis (Ga. L. Rev, 2005) 125.
[38] Ronald Kahn, God Save us from Coercion Test (Case W. Res. L. Rev, 1992)1001.
[39] Rodney Smith, Nonpreferentialism in Establishment Clause Analysis: A Response to Professor Laycock (St. John’s Law Review, 2012) 254.
[40] Rodney Smith, Nonpreferentialism in Establishment Clause Analysis: A Response to Professor Laycock (St. John’s Law Review, 2012) 265.
[41] Rodney Smith, Nonpreferentialism in Establishment Clause Analysis: A Response to Professor Laycock (St. John’s Law Review, 2012)272.
[42] Andrew Koppelman, Endorsing the Endorsement Test (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 721.
[43] Andrew Koppelman, Endorsing the Endorsement Test (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 725.
[44] Andrew Koppelman, Endorsing the Endorsement Test (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 729.
[45] John Whitehead, Religious Freedom in the Nineties: Betwixt and between Flores and Smith (Washburn Law Journal, 1997)121.
[46] John Whitehead, Religious Freedom in the Nineties: Betwixt and between Flores and Smith (Washburn Law Journal, 1997)116.
[47] John Whitehead, Religious Freedom in the Nineties: Betwixt and between Flores and Smith (Washburn Law Journal, 1997)129.
[48] Laura Rahe, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and the Private Choice Doctrine (Clev. St. L. Rev, 2002) 232.
[49] Laura Rahe, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and the Private Choice Doctrine (Clev. St. L. Rev, 2002) 239.
[50] David Cole, The angry new frontier: Gay rights vs. religious liberty (NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, 2015)
[51] David Cole, The angry new frontier: Gay rights vs. religious liberty (NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, 2015)
[52] William Janssen, Toiling in the Lemon Groves (Charleston L. Rev, 2012) 698.
[53] Tara Helfman, the Religious-Liberty War (COMMENTARY, 2015) 55.
[54] Tara Helfman, the Religious-Liberty War (COMMENTARY, 2015) 62.
[55] Arthur Weiss, Constitutional Law–Amish Religion vs. State Interest in Education (Journal of Urban Law, 1972) 493.
[56] Arthur Weiss, Constitutional Law–Amish Religion vs. State Interest in Education (Journal of Urban Law, 1972) 496.
[57] Paul. S. Zilberfein, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (The Erosion of Religious Liberty.” Pace L. Rev.1992) 403.
[58] Paul. S. Zilberfein, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (The Erosion of Religious Liberty.” Pace L. Rev.1992) 407.
[59] John Duke, Religious Freedom, and the Little Corporation That Could: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (Mississippi College Law Review, 2015) 92.
[60] John Duke, Religious Freedom, and the Little Corporation That Could: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (Mississippi College Law Review, 2015) 98.
[61] Timothy Rennie, Constitutional Law – Let Them Eat Cake – Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy, 2018) 353.
[62] Timothy Rennie, Constitutional Law – Let Them Eat Cake – Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (Suffolk Journal of Trial & Appellate Advocacy, 2018) 364.
[63] David Cole, The angry new frontier: Gay rights vs. religious liberty (NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, 2015)
[64] John Whitehead, Religious Freedom in the Nineties: Betwixt and between Flores and Smith (Washburn Law Journal, 1997)112.
[65] David Cole, The angry new frontier: Gay rights vs. religious liberty (NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, 2015)
[66] Marilyn Perrin, Lee V. Weisman: Unanswered prayers (Pepp.L. Rev, 1993)208.
[67] Marilyn Perrin, Lee V. Weisman: Unanswered prayers (Pepp.L. Rev, 1993)209.
[68] Marilyn Perrin, Lee V. Weisman: Unanswered prayers (Pepp.L. Rev, 1993)210.
write