Constitutional Law. Establishment Clause. Tenth Circuit Holds That City May Deny Opportunity to Deliver Proselytizing Legislative Prayers. Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 159 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 1998) (En Banc), Cert. Denied, 67 U. S. L. W. 3496 (U. S. Mar. 29, 1999) (No. 98-1193)

Aux États-Unis comme au Canada il y a toujours eu, et il continue à y avoir, des problèmes à propos du rôle de l'État dans le domaine de l'éducation confessionnelle. Au Canada, l'article 93 de l'Acte de l'Amérique du Nord britannique protège les droits confessionnels des catholiques et des protestants. Aux États-Unis, le premier amendement à la Constitution ordonne une séparation entre l'Église et l'État. Il y a également L'Establishment Clause qui défend que l'État subventionne les écoles confessionnelles. Dans cet article, l'auteur retrace l'interprétation donnée à l'article 93 de l'Acte de l'Amérique du Nord britannique ainsi que l'interprétation donnée à l'Establishment Clause du premier amendement de la Constitution américaine, et fait des comparaisons entre les deux. En conclusion, il constate que même les juges les plus savants ne pourront peut-être jamais trouver la solution définitive aux problèmes qui se posent.

Download Full-text

Constitutional Law. Nonestablishment of Religion. Grants to Low-Income Area Parochial Schools for Certain Maintenance Costs and to Low-Income Parochial School Parents as Partial Reimbursement for Tuition Expenditures Violate Establishment Clause, but Tax Credits for Tuition Payments to Such Schools Are Constitutionally Permissible. Committee for Pub. Educ. & Relig. Liberty v. Nyquist, 350 F. Supp. 655 (S. D. N. Y. 1972) (Three-Judge Court), Prob. Juris. Noted, 93 S. Ct. 962 (1973) (Nos. 694, 753, 791, 929)

Harvard Law Review ◽

10.2307/1340089 ◽

1973 ◽

Vol 86 (6) ◽

pp. 1081

Keyword(s):

Low Income ◽

Constitutional Law ◽

Parochial Schools ◽

Tax Credits ◽

Establishment Clause ◽

Parochial School ◽

Maintenance Costs

Download Full-text

Constructing a Tower of Babble: An Examination of Purpose in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence

SMU Law Review Forum ◽

10.25172/slrf.74.1.1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 74 (1) ◽

pp. 1-28

Author(s):

Griffin Rubin

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Constitutional Law ◽

Analytical Framework ◽

Establishment Clause ◽

Proper Place ◽

Institutional Legitimacy ◽

Current State ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Future Outcomes ◽

Constitutional Analysis

“Purpose” is a key component of modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence. While the Supreme Court has expanded the role purpose plays in various areas of constitutional analysis over the last half-century, the Court seemingly continues to muddy the waters as to purpose’s proper place in Establishment Clause cases. This Comment focuses on the function and operation of purpose in Establishment Clause cases in order to probe the complications and obstacles inherent to this area of constitutional law. By constructing and applying an analytical framework that examines modern Establishment Clause cases through the lenses of “conceptions of purpose,” “evidence of purpose,” and “indicia of impermissible purpose,” this Comment provides critical takeaways about the development and current state of the Establishment Clause—as well as potential future outcomes in these cases. Ultimately, the dispositive consideration in Establishment Clause cases is the utilization and weight given by individual Justices in any given case to the factors discussed in this Comment’s analytical framework. This conclusion demonstrates the judge-dependent nature of these cases and the value certain Justices place on the institutional legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the judicial branch as a whole.

Download Full-text