American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective (packet)

Concern with state attempts to exercise authority over religion. In areas of concern, will only allow activity to proceed if there is a compelling secular state purpose. Note that the effect of allowing these exemptions has the effect of compromising the establishment clause. (Scalia in Smith v. Employment).

Coercion or economic detriment:

1. 
   Sherbert v. Verner, 1963: Free exercise is keyed to eco detriment. 7^th Day Adventist hindered by unemployment law that req her to find work on Sat. Struck down req as applied to 7^th Day Adventists, found a constit compelled exemption b/c reg was imposing majoritarian sensibilities. Braufeld probably not good law after this b/c more coercion/eco detriment there. Massive conversions to 7^th Day Adventist religion unlikely so d/n really violate Anti-Est. clause. Compelling “secular” state purpose of Sunday closing rules is suspect. Never overruled and remains good law.
   
2. 
   Torasco v. Watkins, 1961; McDaniel v. Paty, 1978: court ruled the govt may never use religion as a condition for access to rights or opportunities.
   
3. 
   Locke v. Davey: P.1519:: upheld State Constitution prohibition on using scholarship at institution where pursing degree in devotional theology.
   
4. 
   Braufeld v. Brown, p.1522 1961: questioned Sunday closing laws b/c they disadvantaged Jewish businesses that were closed on Saturday. Court upheld the laws b/c there was a compelling state purpose in having a common day of rest together w/out commerce. Probs: s/n have everyone rest on one day, should respect minority religions and make exceptions, and who are we to tell others they c/n shop on their day of rest. Now there are mandatory exemptions from state laws when free exercise is at stake.
   
5.