Case Summaries List for Moot Court:

ACLU v. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board- 6th Circuit-2000

Facts: Challenge to the Ohio statute making it the official state motto With God All Things Are Possible, which is
taken directly from the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
Ruling: The Court Holds the Statute Unconstitutional
Reasoning: The Court is required to view the words of the motto as part of the text in which they are found and give to
them. As such, they are an endorsement of the Christian religion by Ohio. This decision should not be viewed as hostile
to religion but rather an effort to assure government neutrality in relation to religion

Allegheny v. ACLU-1989
Facts: Challenge to two holiday displays erected every year in downtown Pittsburgh. The first display was a crche,
placed on the grand staircase of the county courthouse. The second display was a menorah located outside of the City-
County building where the mayor and other city official have their offices. This display also included a Christmas tree.
Ruling: The Court Holds the Creche Unconstitutional but Holds the Menorah Constitutional
Reasoning: The display of the crche here did not contain objects of attention that were separate from the crche and
had their specific visual story to tell. The crche instead stood alone and was the single element on display on the Grand
Staircase. This allowance sent an unmistakable message that the county supports and promotes the Christian praise to
God. However, the menorah display was different because it stood next to a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty
and so creates an overall holiday setting and so the display wont be perceived as an endorsement or disapproval of
individual citizens religious choices.

Bridenbaugh v. OBannon-7th Circuit-1999

Facts: Challenge to Indiana Statute making Good Friday a legal holiday, thus allowing Indiana state employees a day off
with pay.
Ruling: The Court Holds the Statute Constitutional
Reasoning: In applying the Lemon test, the state has several secular purposes justifying making Good Friday an official
holiday; Simply because this law confers an indirect, remote or incidental benefit upon religion does not make it
constitutionally invalid.

Coles v. Cleveland Board of Education- 6th Circuit-1999

Facts: Challenge to Cleveland Board of Educations practice of opening its meetings with a prayer
Ruling: Court Holds the Practice Unconstitutional
Reasoning: The Court said that the practice here fell more along the lines of Lee because the Cleveland School Board is
so inextricably intertwined with the public schools that it must be evaluated on the same basis as the schools themselves.
No secular purpose, could achieve formality without prayer, entanglement b/c of decisions made (to pray, which prayers,
etc)

Edwards v. Aguillard- 1987

Facts: Challenge to a Louisiana law, the Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science in Public
School Instruction Act, which prohibited schools from teaching evolutionary principles unless theories of creationism
were also taught
Ruling: The Court Holds the Law Unconstitutional
Reasoning: Applying the Lemon test, the law fails the first prong because there is no secular purpose for the law.
Teachers already had the ability to present any theories alongside evolution and so this bill does not advance teachers
prerogative here. The purpose of this law was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious
viewpoint and this represents an impermissible endorsement of religion.
Everson v. Board of Education-1947:
Facts: Concerns a New Jersey law which permits tax money to be used to reimburse parents transportation costs of
sending their children to school, both public and private (including religious schools).
Ruling: The Court Holds the Statute Constitutional
Reasoning: New Jerseys legislation does not contribute money or support religious schools; it does no more than
provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of religion, safely to school. State power is to be
no more used to handicap religions than it is to favor them

Gaylor v. U.S.- 10th Circuit- 1996

Facts: Challenge to the Statute establishing In God We Trust as a national motto and authorizing its use on U.S.
currency.
Ruling: The Court Holds the Statute Constitutional
Reasoning: In applying the Lemon test, the statutes creating this motto and placing it on currency have a secular
purpose by symbolizing the historical role of religion on our society, formalizing our medium of exchange, fostering
patriotism and expressing confidence in our future. The motto also does not create an intimate relationship of the type
that suggests unconstitutional entanglement of church and state. The court has recently shifted away from the Lemon
test and applied more of an endorsement test. The motto satisfies this standard too because the reasonable observer
would not view the practice as an endorsement of religion.

Lee v. Weisman- 1992

Facts: Principals of public middle and high schools in Providence, Rhode Island are permitted to invite members of the
clergy to give invocations and benedictions at their schools' graduation ceremonies. Petitioner Lee, a middle school
principal, invited a rabbi to offer such prayers at the graduation ceremony for Deborah Weisman's class, gave the Rabbi
a pamphlet containing guidelines for the composition of public prayers at civic ceremonies, and advised him that the
prayers should be nonsectarian.
Ruling: The Establishment clause forbids including clergy who offer prayers as part of an official public school
graduation ceremony.
Reasoning: The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not
supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause, which guarantees at a
minimum that a government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or
otherwise act in a way which "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." State
officials here direct the performance of a formal religious exercise at secondary schools' promotional and
graduation ceremonies. Lee's decision that prayers should be given and his selection of the religious
participant are choices attributable to the State. Moreover, through the pamphlet and his advice that the
prayers be nonsectarian, he directed and controlled the prayers' content.

Lemon v. Kurtzman- 1971:

Facts: Concerns a Pennsylvania law which allowed state taxes to be used to reimburse nonpublic, including religious,
schools for expenses incurred for teachers salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials (however the state would only
pay for secular expenses). To receive reimbursement, schools had to keep separate records, identifying secular and non-
secular expenses.
Ruling: The Court Holds the Statute Unconstitutional
Reasoning: Although a given law may not establish a state religion, it may nevertheless be one respecting that end in
the sense of being a step that could lead to such establishment and hence offend the First Amendment. Reimbursement
for teachers salaries, however, provides too much potential for impermissible fostering of religion. To ensure teachers
do not inject religion into their classes, a comprehensive and continuing state surveillance would be required and thus
would produce excessive entanglement.
Lynch v. Donnelly-1984
Facts: Challenge to a state sponsored Christmas display of a crche (a nativity scene), among other items, in a park
owned by a nonprofit organization. The display included a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, a clown, colored lights,
a Seasons Greetings banner, and a crche. The city paid $1,365 for a new crche in 1973 and it cost $20 to take the
display up and down every year.
Ruling: Court Holds the Display Constitutional
Reasoning: The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; rather, it affirmatively mandates
accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility towards any. There has been an unbroken
history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life,
including executive orders proclaiming Thanksgiving and Christmas national holidays, In God We Trust on currency,
publicly supported art galleries full of religious paintings. To forbid the use of the one passive symbol of the crche
(particularly when it is surrounded by other secular items) at the time when people are taking note of the season with
hymns in public schools and other public places, and Congress and legislatures open session with prayers by paid
chaplains, would be a stilted overreaction contrary to our history and holdings. This display satisfies the Lemon test
because it has a secular purpose to celebrate the Holiday; whatever benefit to a religion which might flow from this is
indirect, remote and incidental.

Marsh v. Chambers- 1983

Facts: The Nebraska Legislature begins each of its sessions with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the State with the
legislature's approval.
Ruling: The Nebraska Legislature's chaplaincy practice does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Reasoning: The practice of opening sessions of Congress with prayer has continued without interruption for almost 200
years, ever since the First Congress drafted the First Amendment, and a similar practice has been followed for more than
a century in Nebraska and many other states. While historical patterns, standing alone, cannot justify contemporary
violations of constitutional guarantees, historical evidence in the context of this case sheds light not only on what the
drafters of the First Amendment intended the Establishment Clause to mean, but also on how they thought that Clause
applied to the chaplaincy practice authorized by the First Congress In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the
practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine
guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the
Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country

Stone v Graham-1980
Facts: Challenge to a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with
private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the state. The state legislature required the notation
in small print at the bottom of each display that the secular application of the Ten commandments is clearly seen in its
adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western civilization and the common Law of the United States.
Ruling: The Court Holds the Statute Unconstitutional
Reasoning: Applying the Lemon test, the statute has no secular legislative purpose. The posting of the notation is not
sufficient to avoid conflict with the First amendment. The pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments,
which do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and the posting serves no
constitutional educational function. The fact that the posted copies are financed by voluntary private contributions is
immaterial because the mere posting under the auspices of the legislature provides the official support of the state
government that the Establishment Clause prohibits.

Town of Greece v. Galloway- 2014

Facts: Town board meetings in Greece, New York opened with a roll call, a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, and a
prayer given by clergy selected from the congregations listed in a local directory. While the prayer program is open to all
creeds, nearly all of the local congregations are Christian; thus, nearly all of the participating prayer givers have been
too.
Holding: The Judgment is Reversed; The Prayers do not Constitute a Violation of the Establishment Clause.
Reasoning: The town's practice of opening its town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy does
not violate the Establishment Clause when the practice is consistent with the tradition long followed by Congress and
state legislatures, the town does not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer, and the
prayer does not coerce participation with non-adherents. The prayers may have invoked, e.g., the name of Jesus, but they
also invoked universal themes, e.g., by calling for a spirit of cooperation. The relevant constraint derives from the
prayers place at the opening of legislative sessions, where it is meant to lend gravity to the occasion and reflect values
long part of the Nations heritage. Finally, so long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution
does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers in an effort to achieve religious
balancing.

Wallace v. Jaffree- 1985

Facts: Challenge to an Alabama law authorizing a daily period of silence in all public schools for meditation or
voluntary prayer.
Ruling: Court Holds Law Unconstitutional
Reasoning: In applying the Lemon test, the Court found there was no secular purpose. The legislative record of passage
of this law establishes that the purpose was to endorse religion.

Van Orden v. Perry- 2005

Facts: Among the 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the Texas State Capitol is a 6-foot-high
monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments.
Holding: The judgment is affirmed; the monument does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Reasoning: Reconciling the strong role played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nations
history with the principle that governmental intervention in religious matters can itself endanger religious
freedom requires that the Court neither abdicate its responsibility to maintain a division between church
and state nor evince a hostility to religion. From at least 1789, there has been an unbroken history of
official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of religions role in American life. The
Courts opinions, like its building, have recognized the role the Decalogue plays in Americas heritage.
While the Commandments are religious, they have an undeniable historical meaning. Simply having
religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the
Establishment Clause. Passive display. The circumstances surrounding the monuments placement on the
capitol grounds and its physical setting provide a strong, but not conclusive, indication that the
Commandments text as used on this monument conveys a predominantly secular message.