Take a look
at this excerpt from Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion:
And the cases together lead to an overarching
set of principles: If the challenged government
practice is not coercive and if it (i) is rooted in history and
tradition; or (ii) treats religious people, organizations,
speech, or activity equally to comparable secular people,
organizations, speech, or activity; or (iii) represents a
permissible legislative accommodation or exemption from
a generally applicable law, then there ordinarily is no
Establishment Clause violation.
The practice of displaying religious memorials, particularly
religious war memorials, on public land is not coercive
and is rooted in history and tradition. The Bladensburg
Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.
set of principles: If the challenged government
practice is not coercive and if it (i) is rooted in history and
tradition; or (ii) treats religious people, organizations,
speech, or activity equally to comparable secular people,
organizations, speech, or activity; or (iii) represents a
permissible legislative accommodation or exemption from
a generally applicable law, then there ordinarily is no
Establishment Clause violation.
The practice of displaying religious memorials, particularly
religious war memorials, on public land is not coercive
and is rooted in history and tradition. The Bladensburg
Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.
What do you think? Good test?
No comments:
Post a Comment