Court Decision - Bauchman v. West High School. Bauchman v.
West High School (1997) Court Decisions on Religious Liberty Background Information While a sophomore in Salt Lake City's West High School, Rachel Bauchman auditioned for and was admitted to the a cappella choir class taught by Mr. Richard Torgerson. Rachel, who is Jewish, was uncomfortable with participating in such a program - one or two such pieces might not have been a problem, but every single piece praised an individual who, for her, is a false messiah. Rachel also suffered a great deal of harassment by other students and the wider community. In the Spring, problems started again because the choir had normally made trips to various Mormon churches to perform during Mormon religious ceremonies. The ultimate cause for the lawsuit was the attempt by Mr.
Court Decision On December 18, 1997, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed many of Rachel Bauchman complaints, but did agree to rule on whether or not her constitutional rights were violated. Significance. Lynch v. Donnelly. Lynch v.
Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the legality of Christmas decorations on town property. Background[edit] Pawtucket, Rhode Island's annual Christmas display in the city's shopping district, consisting of a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, a banner reading "Season's Greetings," and a crèche, was challenged in court. The crèche had been a part of the display since at least 1943.[1] The plaintiffs brought the suit to the District Court of Rhode Island, which permanently enjoined the city from displaying the Nativity scene in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Issue[edit] The issue at hand was whether the inclusion of a crèche in the city's Christmas display violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ruling[edit] Concurrence[edit] This is sometimes referred to as the "Endorsement Test.
" Dissent[edit] Abington School District v. Schempp. Background[edit] Origin of case[edit] Pennsylvania law, like that of four other states, included a statute compelling school districts to perform Bible readings in the mornings before class.
Twenty-five states had laws allowing "optional" Bible reading, with the remainder having no laws supporting or rejecting Bible reading. In eleven of those states with laws supportive of Bible reading or state-sponsored prayer, the state courts had declared them unconstitutional.[3] More famous than Schempp was Madalyn Murray O'Hair, mother of plaintiff William J.
District court arguments[edit] During the first trial in federal district court, Edward Schempp and his children testified as to specific religious doctrines purveyed by a literal reading of the Bible "which were contrary to the religious beliefs which they held and to their familial teaching" (177 F. District court ruling[edit] The district court ruled in Schempp's favor, and struck down the Pennsylvania statute. Precedents for case[edit] Lemon v. Kurtzman. Lemon v.
Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman), which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught secular material in these nonpublic schools, secular textbooks and secular instructional materials, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The decision also upheld a decision of the First Circuit, which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at nonpublic elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools. Lemon test[edit] The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion.
Recent Use[edit] See also[edit]