Establishment Clause - wikipedia Establishment Clause Constitutional Law of the United States Overview Articles Amendments History Judicial review Principles Separation of powers Individual rights Rule of law Federalism Republicanism Government structure Legislative branch Executive branch Judicial branch State government Local government Individual rights Freedom of religion Freedom of speech Freedom of the press Freedom of assembly Right to petition Freedom of association Right to keep and bear arms Right to trial by jury Criminal procedural rights Right to privacy Freedom from slavery Due process Equal protection Citizenship Voting rights Theory Living Constitution Originalism Purposivism Textualism Strict constructionism The Establishment Clause together with the Free Exercise Clause form the constitutional right of freedom of religion that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The relevant constitutional text is : `` Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... '' The Establishment Clause was derived from a number of precursors, including the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Bill of Rights 1689, and the Pennsylvania and New Jersey colonial constitutions. An initial draft by John Dickinson was prepared in conjunction with his drafting the Articles of Confederation. In 1789, then - congressman James Madison prepared another draft which, following discussion and debate in the First Congress, would become incorporated into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The second half of the Establishment Clause includes the Free Exercise Clause, which allows individual citizens freedom from governmental interference in both private and public religious affairs. The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring or elevating one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government 's entry into the religious domain to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. Contents 1 Historical background 1.1 Constitutions of Clarendon 1.2 1689 Bill of Rights 1.3 Colonial New Jersey and Pennsylvania Constitutions 1.4 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 1.5 United States Bill of Rights 1.6 Concerns of Virginia Baptists 2 Incorporation 3 Financial assistance 4 State - sanctioned prayer in public schools 5 Religious displays 6 Blue laws 7 See also 8 References 9 Research resources 10 Further reading Historical background Constitutions of Clarendon The Constitutions of Clarendon, a 12th - century English law, had prohibited criminal defendants ' using religious laws ( at that time, in mediaeval England, canon law of the Roman Catholic Church ) to seek exemption from criminal prosecution. 1689 Bill of Rights The 1689 English Bill of Rights secured the rights of all `` persons '' to be free from establishment of Roman Catholic laws in the government of England. Colonial New Jersey and Pennsylvania constitutions The original Mason - Dixon line was the demarcation line between the Catholic colony of Maryland and the New Jersey and Pennsylvania colonies, which followed the 1689 Bill of Rights and their own colonial constitutions which provided similar protections against the establishment of Catholic laws in government. Virginia statute for religious Freedom Main article : Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom A possible additional precursor of the Free Exercise Clause was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The statute was drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and was introduced in the Virginia General Assembly in 1779. It did not pass the General Assembly until 1786. James Madison played an important role in its passage. The statute disestablished the Church of England in Virginia and guaranteed freedom of religion exercise to men of all religious faiths, including Catholics and Jews as well as members of all Protestant denominations. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom granted these rights to men, whereas the First Amendment to the United States Constitution grants rights to persons, as does the 1689 Bill of Rights and the colonial constitutions in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. United states Bill of Rights Main article : United States Bill of Rights See also : Anti-Federalism The First Amendment is part of a group of 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was proposed by George Mason five days before the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in 1787. His proposal was rejected by the other delegates. Alexander Hamilton later argued in The Federalist Papers that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, claiming that since the Constitution granted limited powers to the federal government, it did not grant the new government the power to abuse the rights that would be secured by a Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, the supporters of the Constitution ( known as Federalists ) in order to secure its ratification in Massachusetts, agreed to add a group of Amendments to the Constitution after its ratification that would serve as a Bill of Rights. Later, six more states likewise recommended the addition of a Bill of Rights, and the idea also gained the support of Jefferson and Madison. When the First Federal Congress met in 1789, Madison implemented the idea by introducing 17 Amendments to the Constitution. By December 1791, ten of his Amendments were ratified by the necessary three quarters of the states, and they became part of the US Constitution, thereafter becoming known as `` the Bill of Rights ''. Concerns of Virginia Baptists The Establishment Clause addressed the concerns of members of minority faiths who did not want the federal government to establish a state religion for the entire nation. The Baptists in Virginia, for example, had suffered discrimination prior to the disestablishment of the Anglican church in 1786. As Virginia prepared to hold its elections to the state ratifying convention in 1788, the Baptists were concerned that the Constitution had no safeguard against the creation of a new national church. In Orange County, Virginia, two federalist candidates, James Madison and James Gordon, Jr., were running against two anti-federalists ( opponents of the Constitution ), Thomas Barbour and Charles Porter. Barbour requested to John Leland, an influential Baptist preacher and fervent lifelong proponent of religious liberty, that he write a letter to Barbour outlining his objections to the proposed Constitution. Leland stated in the letter that, among his other concerns, the Constitution had no Bill of Rights and no safeguards for religious liberty and freedom of the press. A number of historians have concluded on the basis of compelling circumstantial evidence that, just prior to the election in March 1788, Madison met with Leland and gained his support of ratification by addressing these concerns and providing him with the necessary reassurances. In any event, Leland cast his vote for Madison. Leland 's support, according to Scarberry, was likely key to the landslide victory of Madison and Gordon. Incorporation Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights has been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. The process of incorporating the two Religion Clauses in the First Amendment was twofold. The first step was the Supreme Court 's conclusion in 1940 that the Free Exercise Clause was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Conceptually, this raised few difficulties : the Due Process Clause protects those rights in the Bill of Rights `` implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, '' and free exercise of religion is a quintessential individual right ( and had been recognized as such at the state level from the beginning ). Incorporation of the Establishment Clause in 1947 proved to be problematic in several ways and subject to critique. The controversy surrounding Establishment Clause incorporation primarily stems from the fact that one of the intentions of the Establishment Clause was to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments of religion that existed at the time of the founding ( at least six states had established religions at the founding ) -- a fact conceded by even those members of the Court who believe the Establishment Clause was made applicable to the states through incorporation. Critics have also argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to incorporate only individual rights found in the Bill of Rights ; the Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause ( which critics readily concede protects individual rights ), does not purport to protect individual rights. Financial assistance The Supreme Court first considered the question of financial assistance to religious organizations in Bradfield v. Roberts ( 1899 ). The federal government had funded a hospital operated by a Roman Catholic institution. In that case, the Court ruled that the funding was to a secular organization -- the hospital -- and was therefore permissible. In the twentieth century, the Supreme Court more closely scrutinized government activity involving religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education ( 1947 ), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held, The `` establishment of religion '' clause of the First Amendment means at least this : Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect `` a wall of separation between church and State. '' The New Jersey law was upheld, for it applied `` to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief. '' After Everson, lawsuits in several states sought to disentangle public monies from religious teaching, the leading case being the 1951 Dixon School Case out of New Mexico. The Jefferson quotation cited in Black 's opinion is from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that there should be `` a wall of separation between church and state. '' Critics of Black 's reasoning ( most notably, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist ) have argued that the majority of states did have `` official '' churches at the time of the First Amendment 's adoption and that James Madison, not Jefferson, was the principal drafter. However, Madison himself often wrote of `` perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters '' ( 1822 letter to Livingston ), which means the authority of the church ( that which comes from the church ) is decided by church authority, and that which is decided in civil government is decided by civil authorities ; neither may decree law or policy in each other 's realm. Another description reads : `` line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government '' ( 1832 letter Rev. Adams ), and `` practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States '' ( 1811 letter to Baptist Churches ). In Lemon v. Kurtzman ( 1971 ), the Supreme Court ruled that government may not `` excessively entangle '' with religion. The case involved two Pennsylvania laws : one permitting the state to `` purchase '' services in secular fields from religious schools, and the other permitting the state to pay a percentage of the salaries of private school teachers, including teachers in religious institutions. The Supreme Court found that the government was `` excessively entangled '' with religion, and invalidated the statutes in question. The excessive entanglement test, together with the secular purpose and primary effect tests thereafter became known as the Lemon test, which judges have often used to test the constitutionality of a statute on establishment clause grounds. The Supreme Court decided Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist and Sloan v. Lemon in 1973. In both cases, states -- New York and Pennsylvania -- had enacted laws whereby public tax revenues would be paid to low - income parents so as to permit them to send students to private schools. It was held that in both cases, the state unconstitutionally provided aid to religious organizations. The ruling was partially reversed in Mueller v. Allen ( 1983 ). There, the Court upheld a Minnesota statute permitting the use of tax revenues to reimburse parents of students. The Court noted that the Minnesota statute granted such aid to parents of all students, whether they attended public or private schools. While the Court has prevented states from directly funding parochial schools, it has not stopped them from aiding religious colleges and universities. In Tilton v. Richardson ( 1971 ), the Court permitted the use of public funds for the construction of facilities in religious institutions of higher learning. It was found that there was no `` excessive entanglement '' since the buildings were themselves not religious, unlike teachers in parochial schools, and because the aid came in the form of a one - time grant, rather than continuous assistance. One of the largest recent controversies over the amendment centered on school vouchers -- government aid for students to attend private and predominantly religious schools. The Supreme Court, in Zelman v. Simmons - Harris ( 2002 ), upheld the constitutionality of private school vouchers, turning away an Establishment Clause challenge. State - sanctioned Prayer in public schools Earl Warren was Chief Justice when Engel v. Vitale was decided. Further important decisions came in the 1960s, during the Warren Court era. One of the Court 's most controversial decisions came in Engel v. Vitale in 1962. The case involved the mandatory daily recitation by public school officials of a prayer written by the New York Board of Regents, which read `` Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country ''. The Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional and struck it down, with Justice Black writing `` it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government. '' The reading of the Lord 's Prayer or of the Bible in the classroom of a public school by the teacher was ruled unconstitutional in 1963. The ruling did not apply to parochial or private schools in general. The decision has been met with both criticism and praise. Many social conservatives are critical of the court 's reasoning, including the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Conversely, the ACLU and other civil libertarian groups hailed the court 's decision. In Abington Township v. Schempp ( 1963 ), the case involving the mandatory reading of the Lord 's Prayer in class, the Supreme Court introduced the `` secular purpose '' and `` primary effect '' tests, which were to be used to determine compatibility with the establishment clause. Essentially, the law in question must have a valid secular purpose, and its primary effect must not be to promote or inhibit a particular religion. Since the law requiring the recital of the Lord 's Prayer violated these tests, it was struck down. The `` excessive entanglement '' test was added in Lemon v. Kurtzman ( vide supra ). In Wallace v. Jaffree ( 1985 ), the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law whereby students in public schools would observe daily a period of silence for the purpose of private prayer. The Court did not, however, find that the moment of silence was itself unconstitutional. Rather, it ruled that Alabama lawmakers had passed the statute solely to advance religion, thereby violating the secular purpose test. The 1990s were marked by controversies surrounding religion 's role in public affairs. In Lee v. Weisman ( 1992 ), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attending ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Lee the Court developed the coercion test. Under this test the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it ( 1 ) provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or ( 2 ) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will. In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe ( 2000 ), the Court ruled that a vote of the student body could not authorize student - led prayer prior to school events. In 2002, controversy centered on a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow ( 2002 ), which struck down a California law providing for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance ( which includes the phrase `` under God '' ) in classrooms. Each House of Congress passed resolutions reaffirming their support for the pledge ; the Senate vote was 99 -- 0 and the House vote was 416 -- 3. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case, but did not rule on the merits, instead reversing the Ninth Circuit 's decision on standing grounds. Religious displays The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly ( 1984 ), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU ( 1989 ). In the former case, the Court upheld the public display of a crèche, ruling that any benefit to religion was `` indirect, remote, and incidental. '' In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crèche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity ( Luke 2 : 14 in the Latin Vulgate translation ). At the same time, the Allegheny County Court upheld the display of a nearby menorah, which appeared along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, reasoning that `` the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah... simply recognizes that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter - holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society. '' In Lynch v. Donnelly the Supreme Court also developed with the endorsement test a further test to determine the constitutionality under the Establishment Clause of certain government actions. In 2001, Roy Moore, then Chief Justice of Alabama, installed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building. In 2003, he was ordered in the case of Glassroth v. Moore by a federal judge to remove the monument, but he refused to comply, ultimately leading to his removal from office. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the lower court 's decision to stand. On March 2, 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. These were the first cases directly dealing with display of the Ten Commandments the Court had heard since Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ). These cases were decided on June 27, 2005. In Van Orden, the Court upheld, by a 5 -- 4 vote, the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas State Capitol due to the monument 's `` secular purpose ''. In McCreary County, however, the Court ruled 5 -- 4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were unconstitutional because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display, and thus were considered to have a religious purpose. Blue laws In the 1964 case McGowan v. Maryland the Supreme Court held that blue laws which restricted the sale of goods on Sunday 's ( and were originally intended to increase Church attendance ) did not violate the Establishment Clause because they served a present secular purpose of providing a uniform day of rest for everyone. See also Faith - based initiatives No Religious Test Clause Separation of church and state in the United States Torcaso v. Watkins United States religious history References Jump up ^ `` Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, January 16, 1786 ''. Shaping the Constitution. Virginia Memory. ^ Jump up to : Labunski, Richard ( 2006 ). James Madison and the struggle for the Bill of Rights. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199740992. Jump up ^ Bruns, Roger A. `` A More Perfect Union : The Creation of the U.S. Constitution ''. Retrieved July 17, 2010. Jump up ^ Scarberry, Mark S. ( 2009 ). `` John Leland and James Madison : Religious influence on the Ratification of the Constitution and on the Proposal of the Bill of Rights ''. Penn State Law Review. 113 ( 3 ) : 733 -- 800. SSRN 1262520. See p. 764, footnote 147, which presents a quote from a copy of Leland 's letter ( as quoted in an article by L.H. Butterfield ) : `` Sir, According to your Request, I have sent you my objections to the Foederal Constitution, which are as follows... ``. Jump up ^ Scarberry, Mark S. ( 2009 ). `` John Leland and James Madison : Religious influence on the Ratification of the Constitution and on the Proposal of the Bill of Rights ''. Penn State Law Review. 113 ( 3 ) : 733 -- 800. SSRN 1262520. Jump up ^ Scarberry, Mark S. ( 2009 ). `` John Leland and James Madison : Religious influence on the Ratification of the Constitution and on the Proposal of the Bill of Rights ''. Penn State Law Review. 113 ( 3 ) : 733 -- 800. SSRN 1262520. Scarberry states on pp. 775 - 6 : `` At the very least, it seems probable that Madison met with Leland before the election and persuaded Leland to support Madison 's candidacy, which otherwise likely would have failed. '' Jump up ^ Hamburger, Philip ( 2004 ). Separation of Church and State. Harvard University Press. p. 156. ISBN 978 - 0 - 674 - 01374 - 2. Jump up ^ Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 ( 1940 ) Jump up ^ Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 326 ( 1937 ) ^ Jump up to : McConnell, Michael W. ; Garvey, John H. ; Berg, Thomas C. ( 2006 ). Religion and the Constitution. Aspen casebook series. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. p. 74. ISBN 073550718X. Jump up ^ Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 ( 1947 ) Jump up ^ School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 ( 1963 ) ( Brennan, J., concurring ) ( `` The absorption of the Establishment Clause has, however, come later and by a route less easily charted. '' ) Jump up ^ Lietzau, William K. ( 1990 ). `` Rediscovering the Establishment Clause : Federalism and the Rollback of Incorporation ''. DePaul L. Rev. 39 ( 1191 ). Jump up ^ Smith, Stephen D. ( 1995 ). `` Chapter 2 : The Jurisdictional Character of the Religion Clauses ''. Foreordained Failure : The Quest for a Constitutional Principle of Religious Freedom. Oxford University Press. Jump up ^ Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 ( 2004 ) ( Thomas, J., concurring ) ( `` I accept that the Free Exercise Clause... applies against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Establishment Clause is another matter. '' ) ^ Jump up to : McConnell, Michael W. ( 1990 ). `` The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion ''. Harvard Law Review. 103 ( 7 ) : 1409 -- 1517. doi : 10.2307 / 1341281. Jump up ^ Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 ( 1963 ) ( Brennan, J., concurring ) Jump up ^ Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 ( 2004 ) ( Thomas, J., concurring ). Jump up ^ Pfeffer, Leo ( 1967 ) Church, state, and freedom Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusetts, pages 545 - 549 Jump up ^ But see Bown v. Gwinnett County School District, 112 F. 3d 1464 ( 11th Cir. 1997 ). Jump up ^ `` Town of Greece v. Galloway : A deep dive ''. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago - Kent College of Law. Retrieved 9 May 2014. Jump up ^ For the Endorsement test see Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 ( 1984 ). Jump up ^ `` McGowan v. Maryland ''. Oyez. Retrieved 2018 - 04 - 19. Marnell, William, H. ( 1964 ). The First Amendment : Religious Freedom in America from Colonial Days to The School Prayer Controversy. Doubleday & Company. Research resources First Amendment Library entry for Establishment Clause Cases ( with links to all of the Supreme Court 's Establishment Clause cases ) Defending Jefferson 's `` wall of separation '' metaphor Religious Expression in American Public Life : A Joint Statement of Current Law Further reading Dreisbach, Daniel L. Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State. New York University Press. ISBN 978 - 0 - 8147 - 1935 - 0. Royal C. Gilkey, `` The Problem of Church and State in Terms of the Nonestablishment and Free Exercise of Religion '', William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 9, Issue I, 1967, 149 - 165 Scarberry, Mark S. ( April 2009 ). `` John Leland and James Madison : Religious Influence on the Ratification of the Constitution and on the Proposal of the Bill of Rights '' ( PDF ). Penn State Law Review. 113 ( 3 ) : 733 -- 800. Stone, Geoffrey R. ( 2008 ). `` The World of the Framers : A Christian Nation ? ''. UCLA L. Rev. 56 ( 1 ). Tillman, Seth Barrett ( 2009 ). `` Blushing Our Way Past Historical Fact And Fiction : A Response to Professor Geoffrey R. Stone 's Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture and Essay ''. Penn St. L. Rev. 114 ( 391 ). SSRN 1333576. Wiecek, William M. ; United States, Permanent Committee for the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise ( 2006 ). `` The Establishment of Religion ''. The birth of the modern Constitution : the United States Supreme Court, 1941 - 1953. Cambridge University Press. pp. 250 -- 284. ISBN 978 - 0 - 521 - 84820 - 6. United States Constitution Articles Preamble II III IV V VI VII Amendments Ratified Bill of Rights 5 6 7 8 9 10 Others 11 12 Reconstruction Amendments 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Pending Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Amendment Child Labor Repealed Eighteenth Amendment Unsuccessful Equal Rights District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment proposals in Congress Convention to propose amendments State ratifying conventions Formation History Articles of Confederation Mount Vernon Conference Annapolis Convention Philadelphia Convention Virginia Plan New Jersey Plan Connecticut Compromise Three - Fifths Compromise Committee of Detail Signing Independence Hall Syng inkstand The Federalist Papers Anti-Federalist Papers Massachusetts Compromise Virginia Ratifying Convention Hillsborough Convention Rhode Island ratification Drafting and ratification timeline Clauses Appointments Appropriations Assistance of Counsel Bills of credit Case or Controversy Citizenship Commerce Compact Compulsory Process Confrontation Congressional enforcement Contract Copyright and Patent Double Jeopardy Due Process Equal Protection Establishment Exceptions Excessive Bail Ex post facto Extradition Free Exercise Free Speech Fugitive Slave Full Faith and Credit General Welfare Guarantee Impeachment Import - Export Ineligibility Militia Natural - born citizen Necessary and Proper New States No Religious Test Oath or Affirmation Origination Petition Postal Presentment Privileges and Immunities Privileges or Immunities Recess appointment Recommendation Self - Incrimination Speech or Debate Speedy Trial State of the Union Supremacy Suspension Take Care Takings Taxing and Spending Territorial Title of Nobility Treaty Trial by Jury Vesting Vicinage War Powers List of clauses Interpretation Concurrent powers Constitutional law Criminal procedure Criminal sentencing Dormant Commerce Clause Enumerated powers Equal footing Executive privilege Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Judicial review Nondelegation doctrine Preemption Saxbe fix Separation of church and state Separation of powers Taxation power Unitary executive theory Display and legacy National Archives Charters of Freedom Rotunda Independence Mall Constitution Day Constitution Gardens National Constitution Center Scene at the Signing of the Constitution ( painting ) A More Perfect Union ( film ) Worldwide influence US Government Portal Law Portal Wikipedia book United States First Amendment case law Establishment Clause Public funding Everson v. Board of Education ( 1947 ) McCollum v. Board of Education ( 1948 ) Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York ( 1970 ) Lemon v. Kurtzman ( 1971 ) Marsh v. Chambers ( 1983 ) Mueller v. Allen ( 1983 ) Aguilar v. Felton ( 1985 ) Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet ( 1994 ) Agostini v. Felton ( 1997 ) Mitchell v. Helms ( 2000 ) Zelman v. Simmons - Harris ( 2002 ) Locke v. Davey ( 2004 ) Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn ( 2011 ) Public displays Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ) Lynch v. Donnelly ( 1984 ) Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary ( 1985 ) County of Allegheny v. ACLU ( 1989 ) McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky ( 2005 ) Van Orden v. Perry ( 2005 ) Pleasant Grove City v. Summum ( 2009 ) School prayer Zorach v. Clauson ( 1952 ) Engel v. Vitale ( 1962 ) Abington School District v. Schempp ( 1963 ) Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ) Wallace v. Jaffree ( 1985 ) Lee v. Weisman ( 1992 ) Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ( 2000 ) Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow ( 2004 ) Creationism Epperson v. Arkansas ( 1968 ) Edwards v. Aguillard ( 1987 ) Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ( M.D. Pa. 2005 ) Legislature prayer Marsh v. Chambers ( 1983 ) Town of Greece v. Galloway ( 2014 ) Lund v. Rowan County ( 4th Cir., 2017 ) Bormuth v. County of Jackson ( 6th Cir., 2017 ) Other McGowan v. Maryland ( 1961 ) McDaniel v. Paty ( 1978 ) Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. ( 1985 ) Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock ( 1989 ) Hosanna - Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( 2012 ) Free Exercise Clause Reynolds v. United States ( 1879 ) Davis v. Beason ( 1890 ) Schneider v. New Jersey ( 1939 ) Cantwell v. Connecticut ( 1940 ) Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) Murdock v. Pennsylvania ( 1943 ) United States v. Ballard ( 1944 ) Braunfeld v. Brown ( 1961 ) Torcaso v. Watkins ( 1961 ) Sherbert v. Verner ( 1963 ) Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church ( 1969 ) Wisconsin v. Yoder ( 1972 ) Harris v. McRae ( 1980 ) Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division ( 1981 ) United States v. Lee ( 1982 ) Bob Jones University v. United States ( 1983 ) Bowen v. Roy ( 1986 ) Goldman v. Weinberger ( 1986 ) Employment Division v. Smith ( 1990 ) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah ( 1993 ) City of Boerne v. Flores ( 1997 ) Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton ( 2002 ) Cutter v. Wilkinson ( 2005 ) Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer ( 2017 ) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( under consideration ) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra ( under consideration ) Freedom of speech ( portal ) Sedition and imminent danger Alien and Sedition Acts ( 1798 ) Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten ( S.D.N.Y. 1917 ) Schenck v. United States ( 1919 ) Abrams v. United States ( 1919 ) Gitlow v. New York ( 1925 ) Whitney v. California ( 1927 ) Dennis v. United States ( 1951 ) Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board ( 1955, 1961 ) Yates v. United States ( 1957 ) Bond v. Floyd ( 1966 ) Brandenburg v. Ohio ( 1969 ) Hess v. Indiana ( 1973 ) False speech Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ( 1974 ) United States v. Alvarez ( 2012 ) Fighting words and the heckler 's veto Cantwell v. Connecticut ( 1940 ) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire ( 1942 ) Terminiello v. Chicago ( 1949 ) Feiner v. New York ( 1951 ) Gregory v. Chicago ( 1969 ) National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie ( 1977 ) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul ( 1992 ) Snyder v. Phelps ( 2011 ) Elonis v. United States ( 2015 ) Freedom of assembly and public forums Hague v. CIO ( 1939 ) Schneider v. New Jersey ( 1939 ) Thornhill v. Alabama ( 1940 ) Martin v. City of Struthers ( 1943 ) Marsh v. Alabama ( 1946 ) Niemotko v. Maryland ( 1951 ) Edwards v. South Carolina ( 1963 ) Cox v. Louisiana ( 1965 ) Brown v. Louisiana ( 1966 ) Adderley v. Florida ( 1966 ) Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne ( 1968 ) Coates v. Cincinnati ( 1971 ) Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe ( 1971 ) Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner ( 1972 ) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins ( 1980 ) Widmar v. Vincent ( 1981 ) Hill v. Colorado ( 2000 ) McCullen v. Coakley ( 2014 ) Packingham v. North Carolina ( 2017 ) Symbolic speech Stromberg v. California ( 1931 ) United States v. O'Brien ( 1968 ) Cohen v. California ( 1971 ) Smith v. Goguen ( 1974 ) Texas v. Johnson ( 1989 ) United States v. Eichman ( 1990 ) Virginia v. Black ( 2003 ) Compelled speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ( 1943 ) Wooley v. Maynard ( 1977 ) Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth ( 2000 ) Davenport v. Washington Education Association ( 2007 ) Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 ( 2012 ) Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. ( 2013 ) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( under consideration ) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra ( under consideration ) Loyalty oaths American Communications Association v. Douds ( 1950 ) Garner v. Board of Public Works ( 1951 ) Speiser v. Randall ( 1958 ) Keyishian v. Board of Regents ( 1967 ) Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb ( 1974 ) School speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ( 1943 ) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District ( 1969 ) Island Trees School District v. Pico ( 1982 ) Bethel School District v. Fraser ( 1986 ) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ( 1988 ) Rosenberger v. University of Virginia ( 1995 ) Morse v. Frederick ( 2007 ) Obscenity Rosen v. United States ( 1896 ) United States v. One Book Called Ulysses ( S.D.N.Y. 1933 ) Roth v. United States ( 1957 ) One, Inc. v. Olesen ( 1958 ) Smith v. California ( 1959 ) Marcus v. Search Warrant ( 1961 ) MANual Enterprises v. Day ( 1962 ) Jacobellis v. Ohio ( 1964 ) Quantity of Books v. Kansas ( 1964 ) Freedman v. Maryland ( 1965 ) Ginzburg v. United States ( 1966 ) Memoirs v. Massachusetts ( 1966 ) Redrup v. New York ( 1967 ) Ginsberg v. New York ( 1968 ) Stanley v. Georgia ( 1969 ) Cohen v. California ( 1971 ) United States v. Thirty - seven Photographs ( 1971 ) Kois v. Wisconsin ( 1972 ) Miller v. California ( 1973 ) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton ( 1973 ) United States v. 12 200 - ft. Reels of Film ( 1973 ) Jenkins v. Georgia ( 1974 ) Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville ( 1975 ) Young v. American Mini Theatres ( 1976 ) New York v. Ferber ( 1982 ) American Booksellers v. Hudnut ( 7th Cir., 1985 ) Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. ( 1986 ) People v. Freeman ( Cal. 1988 ) Osborne v. Ohio ( 1990 ) United States v. X-Citement Video ( 1994 ) Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union ( 1997 ) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group ( 2000 ) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ( 2002 ) Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union ( 2002 ) Nitke v. Gonzales ( S.D.N.Y., 2005 ) United States v. Williams ( 2008 ) FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases ( 2009 and 2012 ) American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland ( 6th Cir., 2009 ) United States v. Kilbride ( 9th Cir., 2009 ) United States v. Stevens ( 2010 ) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association ( 2011 ) Public employees Pickering v. Board of Education ( 1968 ) Perry v. Sindermann ( 1972 ) Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth ( 1972 ) Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle ( 1977 ) Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District ( 1979 ) Connick v. Myers ( 1983 ) Rankin v. McPherson ( 1987 ) Waters v. Churchill ( 1994 ) Garcetti v. Ceballos ( 2006 ) Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri ( 2011 ) Heffernan v. City of Paterson ( 2016 ) Hatch Act and similar laws Ex parte Curtis ( 1882 ) United Public Workers v. Mitchell ( 1947 ) United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers ( 1973 ) Broadrick v. Oklahoma ( 1973 ) Licensing and restriction of speech Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio ( 1915 ) Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson ( 1952 ) Freedman v. Maryland ( 1965 ) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council ( 1976 ) Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. ( 1982 ) Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans ( 2015 ) Matal v. Tam ( 2017 ) Commercial speech Valentine v. Chrestensen ( 1942 ) Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. ( 1970 ) Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations ( 1973 ) Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 1974 ) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council ( 1976 ) Bates v. State Bar of Arizona ( 1977 ) Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro ( 1977 ) Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission ( 1980 ) Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n ( 1980 ) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California ( 1986 ) Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico ( 1986 ) San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee ( 1987 ) 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island ( 1996 ) Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. ( 2011 ) Campaign finance and political speech Buckley v. Valeo ( 1976 ) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ( 1978 ) Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley ( 1981 ) Brown v. Socialist Workers ' 74 Campaign Committee ( 1982 ) Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington ( 1983 ) FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life ( 1986 ) Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce ( 1990 ) McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission ( 1995 ) Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC ( 1996 ) Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC ( 2000 ) Republican Party of Minnesota v. White ( 2002 ) McConnell v. FEC ( 2003 ) Randall v. Sorrell ( 2006 ) FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. ( 2007 ) Davis v. FEC ( 2008 ) Citizens United v. FEC ( 2010 ) McComish v. Bennett ( 2011 ) American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock ( 2012 ) McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ( 2014 ) Williams - Yulee v. The Florida Bar ( 2015 ) Freedom of the press Prior restraints and censorship Near v. Minnesota ( 1931 ) Lovell v. City of Griffin ( 1938 ) Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc. ( 1946 ) New York Times Co. v. United States ( 1971 ) Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo ( 1974 ) Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart ( 1976 ) Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia ( 1978 ) Loewen v. Turnipseed ( N.D. Miss., 1980 ) Tory v. Cochran ( 2005 ) Privacy Time, Inc. v. Hill ( 1967 ) Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn ( 1975 ) Florida Star v. B.J.F. ( 1989 ) Taxation and privileges Grosjean v. American Press Co. ( 1936 ) Branzburg v. Hayes ( 1972 ) Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner ( 1983 ) Defamation Beauharnais v. Illinois ( 1952 ) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ( 1964 ) Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts ( 1967 ) Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n, Inc. v. Bresler ( 1970 ) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ( 1974 ) Time, Inc. v. Firestone ( 1976 ) Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. ( 1984 ) Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. ( 1985 ) McDonald v. Smith ( 1985 ) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ( 1988 ) Harte - Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton ( 1989 ) Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. ( 1990 ) Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox ( 9th Cir., 2014 ) Broadcast media Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC ( 1969 ) FCC v. Pacifica Foundation ( 1978 ) Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC ( 1994 ) Bartnicki v. Vopper ( 2001 ) Copyrighted materials Zacchini v. Scripps - Howard Broadcasting Co. ( 1977 ) Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises ( 1985 ) Freedom of association Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath ( 1951 ) Watkins v. United States ( 1957 ) NAACP v. Alabama ( 1958 ) Baggett v. Bullitt ( 1964 ) In re Primus ( 1978 ) Roberts v. United States Jaycees ( 1984 ) Hurley v. Irish - American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston ( 1995 ) Boy Scouts of America v. Dale ( 2000 ) Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Establishment_Clause&oldid=840866495 '' Categories : Establishment Clause Christianity and law in the 18th century United States legislation about religion Talk Contents About Wikipedia Español فارسی Simple English Edit links This page was last edited on 12 May 2018, at 17 : 49. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: what is the meaning of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment
Answer: freedom of religion