The Establishment Clause: A Constitutional Cornerstone?

The Establishment Clause, part of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, prohibits the government from establishing a religion. The precise definition of establishment is unclear, but the clause forbids the government from establishing an official religion and prohibits actions that unduly favour one religion over another or religion over non-religion. The Establishment Clause is complemented by the Free Exercise Clause, which protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, as long as it does not conflict with public morals or compelling government interests. The Supreme Court has been the ultimate arbiter in interpreting the Establishment Clause, employing various tests to determine whether a law violates it.

Explore related products

The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today

$9.97 $12

The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment

$29.99

A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments

$34.65 $45

The Godless Constitution and the Providential Republic (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (EUSLR))

$26.48 $32.99

Establishment of Religion Clause: The First Amendment: Its Constitutional History and The Contemporary Debate (Bill of Rights)

$17.02 $19.99

Religion and the Constitution, Volume 2: Establishment and Fairness

$47 $47

The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause

The Establishment Clause bars the government from taking sides in religious disputes or favoring or disfavoring anyone based on religion or belief (or lack thereof). This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear, but historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England. Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed by the three-part "Lemon test" set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under this test, the government can assist religion only if the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause recognizes the right to believe and practice one's faith, or not, according to the dictates of conscience. It protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, as long as the practice does not conflict with "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. The Free Exercise Clause is concerned with governmental compulsion, while the Establishment Clause is concerned with laws that establish an official religion, whether or not those laws directly coerce nonobserving individuals.

The two clauses have sometimes come into conflict, and federal courts, with the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter, have helped resolve such conflicts. The Supreme Court has interpreted the clauses as jointly demanding government neutrality toward religion. However, a majority of the current Supreme Court believes that the two clauses are inherently at odds and that long-settled anti-establishment interests conflict with the free exercise of religion. The Court has made dramatic changes to its First Amendment jurisprudence, which critics argue has led to religious favoritism rather than religious liberty for all.

The Establishment Clause and the role of federal courts

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion". This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion but also prohibits government actions that unduly favour one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. The federal courts, with the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter, help to resolve conflicts between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause provides a legal framework for resolving disagreements about the public role of religion in the United States, a pluralistic republic. It is principally authored by James Madison and reflects the widespread agreement after independence that there should be no nationally established church. The Establishment Clause jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has changed over time, vacillating between separationist and accommodationist views. The Court has employed a variety of analyses to determine whether any given law violates the Establishment Clause, depending on the type of government support being challenged.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause in several landmark cases. In Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (1989), the Court held that a state sales tax exemption limited to religious publications was unconstitutional. However, it unanimously upheld the exemption of religious organisations from prohibitions on employment discrimination for ministers. In Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005), the Court unanimously upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which provide broad-based statutory accommodations for religious practice when it conflicts with federal and certain state and local laws. The Court, however, left open the question of whether such a regime applied to land use is constitutional.

The Supreme Court has also considered the issue of religious monuments on public land, such as in Van Orden v. Perry (2005) and McCreary County v. ACLU (2005). While the Court did not articulate a clear general standard for deciding these types of cases, it did revisit this issue in Salazar v. Buono (2008). In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the Court allowed the display of a nativity scene surrounded by other holiday decorations, while in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989), it held that the display of a nativity scene by itself at the top of a grand stairway in a courthouse violated the Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause is not designed to reduce the role of religion in American life. Instead, it ensures that the government shows no partiality to any one group and lets each flourish according to its adherents' zeal and the appeal of its dogma.

The Establishment Clause and the Lemon test

The Establishment Clause, part of the First Amendment, prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion". This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion but also prohibits government actions that unduly favour one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, also part of the First Amendment, sometimes come into conflict. In such cases, federal courts help to resolve these conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.

The Lemon Test is a three-pronged test that was used by the Supreme Court for nearly four decades to evaluate whether a law or government activity violated the Establishment Clause. The test was set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the Lemon Test, the courts would determine the type of aid, whether its primary effect advanced or inhibited religion, and whether the aid created "excessive governmental entanglement" with religion.

The three prongs of the Lemon Test are:

• The primary purpose of the assistance must be secular
• The assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion
• There must be no excessive entanglement between church and state

By 2022, the Supreme Court had largely abandoned the Lemon Test as a way to measure compliance with the First Amendment's prohibition on the government "establishment of religion".

Explore related products

Edward S. Corwin's Constitution and What It Means Today

$74 $81

A Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn't Mean What It Meant Before

$13.77 $22.95

The Yoder Case: Religious Freedom, Education, and Parental Rights (Landmark Law Cases and American Society)

$24.99 $29.99

The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life, Vol. 1: The Odyssey of the Religion Clauses (New Forum Books)

$26.96 $81

Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience (Inalienable Rights)

$19.27 $25.99

The Impossibility of Religious Freedom: New Edition

$24.15 $35

The Establishment Clause and the role of the Supreme Court

The Establishment Clause, part of the First Amendment, prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion". This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion but also prohibits government actions that unduly favour one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or vice versa. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of disputes between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

The Establishment Clause provides a legal framework for resolving disagreements about the public role of religion in a pluralistic republic. It is not designed to reduce the role of religion in American life but to ensure that the government shows no partiality to any one group and that each group can flourish according to its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. Religious accommodations are permissible as long as they do not favour one faith over another.

The Supreme Court has, in the past, permitted religious invocations to open legislative sessions, public funds to be used for private religious school bussing, and textbooks and university funds to be used to print and publish student religious groups' publications. Conversely, the Court has ruled against overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and overly religious holiday decorations on public land.

The Supreme Court has also considered the issue of permanent religious monuments on public land, such as in Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU, but has not articulated a clear general standard for deciding these cases. The Court has also addressed the role of the Establishment Clause in legislative prayer, such as in the 2014 case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, where it was found to be compatible with the Establishment Clause as long as it does not advance or disparage specific faiths or beliefs.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause has evolved over time, and in 2022, the Court issued a decision that significantly affected the analysis used to determine whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been violated.

The Establishment Clause and the Constitution

The Establishment Clause is indeed part of the US Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, which is itself part of the Bill of Rights. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion and is sometimes referred to as the separation of church and state.

The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, as long as it does not conflict with "public morals" or a "compelling" government interest. The Establishment Clause, on the other hand, acts as a double security, prohibiting both control of the government by religion and political control of religion by the government.

The Establishment Clause was based on several precedents, including the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Bill of Rights 1689, and the first constitutions of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It was added to the Constitution in 1789 by then-congressman James Madison, who introduced a group of amendments that would serve as the Bill of Rights. 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 precise definition of "establishment" is unclear, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause has changed over time, vacillating between separationist and accommodationist views. The Court has employed a variety of analyses, such as the Lemon test, to determine whether any given law violates the Establishment Clause. The Lemon test, which combines the secular purpose, excessive entanglement, and primary effect tests, states that the government can assist religion only if:

• The primary purpose of the assistance is secular.
• The assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion.
• There is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

The Establishment Clause provides a legal framework for resolving disagreements about the public role of religion in a pluralistic society. It is not designed to reduce the role of religion in American life but rather to ensure that the government shows no partiality to any one group and lets each flourish according to its adherents' zeal and the appeal of its dogma.

Frequently asked questions