Today in Supreme Court History: June 17, 1963

6/17/1963: Sherbert v. Verner is decided.

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A woman couldn't work on Saturday because of religious obligations and was denied unemployment benefits. The Supreme Court held that this was an unconstitutional infringement of free exercise.

Harlan and White dissented. They would have allowed such a policy voluntarily. It would not be an establishment of religion. But, they argued it was not constitutionally required. They have a decent case.

The opinion was a major precedent holding that even a generally applicable law could be an infringement of free exercise. SCOTUS kept the rule in place, but generally speaking, only unemployment cases won the day. At least in cases that reached the Supreme Court. And a special case involving the Amish.

Justice Stevens eventually argued that an individualized benefits plan like this could be a special case. Religious belief would be a legitimate exemption, as if someone were unable to work because of an injury.

[SMP0328]

From captcrisis.com

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (decided June 17, 2021): Free Exercise Clause prevented City from requiring placement agencies (including Catholic ones) to accept same sex couples for foster care program (for years I defended Catholic placement agencies and this is one of many places where the people “on the ground” disagree with Church teaching; no one feels free to point out the open secret, that the Church’s opposition to same-sex unions is by now practically a laughing stock to its own flock)

School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (decided June 17, 1963): bans daily Bible readings in public school (“ten verses . . . without comment”) as violating First Amendment Establishment Clause even though parent could request child be excused (following up on Engel v. Vitale, 1962, which banned school-led prayer) (the verses were chosen by the homeroom teacher; I would have read from Song of Solomon)

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (decided June 17, 1963): denying unemployment benefits to Seventh Day Adventist because she refused to accept jobs where she had to work on Saturdays violated her free exercise First Amendment rights and no “compelling state interest” in forcing her to accept Saturday work (easy to see that; lots of jobs don’t require weekend work -- but what if she was a Third Day Adventist and couldn’t work on Tuesdays?)

Nestlé USA v. Doe, 593 U.S. 628 (decided June 17, 2021): Alien Tort Statute (which allows foreigners to sue in United States courts) does not extend to allegation by plaintiffs from Mali that they were trafficked as child slaves to harvest cocoa; Court refuses to recognize fourth overseas tort (the three already recognized are violation of safe conduct, infringement of rights of ambassadors, and piracy)

Virginia Uranium v. Warren, 587 U.S. 761 (decided June 17, 2019): state mining laws are not preempted by Atomic Energy Act (here, Virginia ban on mining of uranium)

Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Vogt, 354 U.S. 284 (decided June 17, 1957): upholding ban on picketing of gravel pit because purpose was not to punish owner but to coerce workers to join union, citing Wisconsin statute prohibiting picketing if no labor dispute

Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry, 374 U.S. 424 (decided June 17, 1963): New Mexico statute prohibiting advertising of optometrist prices applied to enjoin ads in New Mexico newspaper and radio station placed by optometrist located in nearby Texas

Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (decided June 17, 1968): disallowing “I can’t help it -- I’m an alcoholic” defense to charge of public intoxication is not Cruel and Unusual Punishment (distinguishing Robinson v. California, 1962, which held that being a drug addict by itself is not a crime, because that’s a status, not an act)

Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (decided June 17, 1974): no warrant needed for examining tire treads and taking scrapings of exterior paint of car impounded from public parking lot after owner was arrested for murder

California v. Texas, 591 U.S. 659 (decided June 17, 2021): neither States nor citizens have standing to contest individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act; can’t show injury because mandate was revised to $0

[SMP0328]

I think Engle and Schempp should survive Kennedy, because those cases involved coercion. One of the reasons Coach Kennedy won was that a majority of the Court felt nobody was coerced to join in his midfield prayers.

[David Nieporent]

One of the reasons Coach Kennedy won was that a majority of the Court felt pretended to think nobody was coerced to join in his midfield prayers.

FIFY.

[bye]

But, David, you do the very thing you criticize. How does anyone make sure that in your head you are praying. You can bow your head and think about 'what's for dinner"
A most silly post.

[bye]

Almost makes the word 'coercion' apply to thoughts.
You say 'Let us Pray!" and whoever doesn't want just doesn't do it.

[A Japanese Student]

I feel like Fulton is wrong, but not because I reject the majority's argument. Rather, I would have held that 1) foster care placement is a governmental action and 2) by receiving the contract from the government to perform governmental action, the Catholic Church became a state actor that themselves are bound by Equal Protection Clause.

[SMP0328]

Under that logic, a government could not contract with a religious organization since the organization would be part of the government and that would violate the Establishment Clause. Fortunately, the law does not a private actor to a public one simply by being privy to a contract with the government.

[A Japanese Student]

If they're contracting for secular activities, then I don't see how that would be an establishment clause violation.

If they are contracting for nonsecular activities, then I figure the result would be similar to that of religious charter schools.

[bye]

But you are wrong because you don't understand Judaism or Christianity. The Bible says 'help EVERYBODY" . it is secular to you but religious to them. IF PP should allow nuns to work there and Pro-life centers need to hire abortionists, everybody's rights are violated. MY grandmother can see this.

This is from the Jewish Amicus Curiae in the Catholic Charities case. It targets your misunderstanding

ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5
I. THE STATE’S RELIGIOUS LITMUS TEST
VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. .............. 5
II. THE STATE’S RELIGIOUS LITMUS TEST
HARMS RELIGIOUS MINORITIES. ................... 6
A. Courts Cannot Objectively Distinguish
Religious and Secular Acts, Especially
for Minority Faiths Like Judaism. ........ 6
B. Allowing Courts to Decide What
Constitutes Religious Acts Will Harm
Adherents of Judaism. .........................

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Powell v. Texas was a near thing with White being the deciding vote. He opposed Robinson, but accepted it as precedent. Thurgood Marshall wrote the plurality.

The 4-1-4 split underlined the potential of using the Constitution to push back on drug laws. For instance, Justice Clark later suggested the right to privacy could apply to personal possession of pot.

White's position could arguably have led drug addicts to have a right not to be arrested for using drugs at home.

White's position also might have led to the homeless not being arrested for public intoxication. Powell was not homeless, so he was not compelled to drink in public.

[bye]

When REASON gets its way and US becomes mecca of drug use, watch the borders swell with the very worst of humanity sprinting to get in.