Establishment Clause: Its Constitutional Location And Significance

The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which is itself part of a group of 10 Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion, unduly favoring one religion over another, or unduly preferring religion over non-religion or vice versa. The precise definition of establishment is unclear, but it has historically meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches. 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 a compelling governmental interest.

Explore related products

The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment

$29.99

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

$9.97 $12

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 is designed to maintain government neutrality towards religion. It bars the government from taking sides in religious disputes or favoring or disfavoring any religious belief or non-belief. The precise definition of "establishment" in the context of the clause is unclear, but historically it has been understood to prohibit state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England. Today, the extent to which the government can assist religion is often evaluated under the three-part "Lemon test" established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman. According to this test, government assistance to religion is permissible only if its primary purpose is secular, it neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause, on the other hand, guarantees religious freedom by ensuring that the government does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. This clause recognizes individuals' right to believe and practice their faith, or not, according to their conscience. It protects citizens' religious practices as long as they do not conflict with "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest.

While the two clauses are generally understood to work together to ensure religious freedom and neutrality, some argue that they are inherently at odds with each other. This conflict has been observed in several Supreme Court cases, including Engel v. Vitale, which dealt with religion in schools. In recent years, the Supreme Court has made significant changes to its First Amendment jurisprudence, leading to concerns about religious favoritism rather than universal religious liberty.

The relationship between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause is complex and has been the subject of ongoing debate and interpretation by legal scholars and the courts. The interpretation and application of these clauses continue to evolve, shaping the understanding of religious freedom and the separation of church and state in the United States.

The Establishment Clause and the Supreme Court

The Establishment Clause, part of the First Amendment, prohibits the government from establishing an official religion. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter when it comes to the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, which sometimes come into conflict.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court identified three factors that determine whether a government practice violates the Establishment Clause: the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and the statute must not foster excessive entanglement with religion. This has become known as the "Lemon test". While the Lemon test has been criticised and the Court often decides cases without reference to it, it has not been overruled and so lower courts remain obliged to use it.

The Establishment Clause has been interpreted in various Supreme Court cases. For example, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Court permitted religious invocations to open legislative sessions. In Everson v. Board of Education, public funds were allowed to be used for private religious school bussing. In Rosenberger v. Rector, textbooks and university funds were used to print and publish student religious groups' publications. In Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (1989), the Court held that a state sales tax exemption limited to religious publications was unconstitutional. However, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. (2012), the Court unanimously upheld the exemption of religious organisations from prohibitions on employment discrimination for ministers.

The Establishment Clause has also been considered in the context of religious monuments on public land. In Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), the Supreme Court considered the issue of religious monuments on public land but did not articulate a clear general standard for deciding these cases. The Court revisited this issue in Salazar v. Buono, which considered the constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected on federal land in the Mojave Desert. While five justices concluded that a federal judge had erred in barring a congressionally ordered land transfer which would place the memorial on private land, there was no majority ruling.

The Establishment Clause and the Bill of Rights

The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is itself part of a group of ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment's two provisions concerning religion are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. These clauses form the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any laws "respecting an establishment of religion". This means that the government cannot establish an official religion and that it cannot favour one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear, but it has historically meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.

The Establishment Clause acts as a double security, preventing both control of the government by religion and political control of religion by the government. It provides a legal framework for resolving disagreements about the public role of religion in a pluralistic republic. The Free Exercise Clause complements the Establishment Clause by prohibiting government interference with religious belief and, within limits, religious practice.

The Establishment Clause has been interpreted in various ways by the Supreme Court. For example, in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the Court invalidated a school district designated solely by the religious identity of its students because it violated the Establishment Clause. In other cases, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative sessions, the use of public funds for private religious school bussing, and the use of textbooks and university funds to publish student religious groups' publications.

Explore related products

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

$19.27 $25.99

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

The Founding Myth

$17.7 $18.99

The Establishment Clause and the First Amendment

The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The First Amendment includes two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a 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 test set forth by the US Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon 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 Establishment 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. Although some government action implicating religion is permissible and unavoidable, it is unclear how much the Establishment Clause tolerates.

The Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative sessions, the use of public funds for private religious school bussing, and the use of textbooks and university funds to print and publish student religious groups' publications. However, 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.

One point of contention regarding the Establishment Clause is how to frame government actions that implicate religion, especially in the context of permanent religious monuments on public land. While it is clear that cities cannot install new religious monuments, there is debate over whether existing monuments should be removed.

The Establishment Clause and religious liberty

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 provides a legal framework for resolving disagreements about the public role of religion in a pluralistic republic.

The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. 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 the "Lemon" test, 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 and the Free Exercise Clause are the First Amendment's two provisions concerning religion. Sometimes, these two clauses come into conflict, and federal courts help resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter. The breadth of the clauses has allowed debates over their proper scope and led to some internal inconsistency in the Supreme Court's opinions interpreting these clauses.

One point of contention regarding the Establishment Clause is how to frame government actions that implicate religion. Although it is reasonably clear that cities cannot install new religious monuments on public land, there is fierce debate over whether existing monuments should be removed. When the Supreme Court considered this issue in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), and McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), it did not articulate a clear general standard for deciding these types of cases.

Another approach in recent cases is called the "endorsement test", which asks whether a reasonable observer acquainted with the full context would regard the display as the government endorsing religion and, therefore, sending a message of disenfranchisement to other believers and non-believers. The Court's decisions in this arena are often closely divided and illustrate that the Court has declined to take "a rigid, absolutist view" of the separation of church and state.

Frequently asked questions