Church-and-state issues are emerging as a dominant theme in the U.S. Supreme Court’s current term—its first under Chief Justice William Rehnquist. This month, oral arguments were presented in a case involving a Louisiana law requiring both evolution and creation science to be taught in public schools. Other key cases involve employment policies of religious groups, obscenity, and restrictions on abortion.
In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, proponents of Louisiana’s creation-science law based their argument on equal treatment. The law, they pointed out, “defines creation science as scientific data, and not as the Biblical account or other religious account of creation.” They said the state law should stand because it serves the purpose of protecting academic freedom and does not violate the constitutional prohibition against establishing state-approved religion.
Opponents say the statute violates the First Amendment because it is impossible to separate creation science from religion. They also reject the idea that creation science is valid from the standpoint of scientific inquiry. A group of more than 70 Nobel laureates in various scientific disciplines filed a brief with the high court saying the Louisiana law “sets up a false conflict between science and religion” and allows an “illegitimate bias toward the outlook of a particular religious sect.”
A number of religious groups have joined the debate, filing briefs on both sides of the issue. The National Council of Churches, American Jewish Committee, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed a brief against the law. Groups filing in favor of preserving the law include the Rutherford Institute, the Christian Legal Society, and the National Association of Evangelicals.
Employment Issues
Last month, the Court ruled that employers are not required to make more than a “reasonable accommodation” for employees’ religious observances. The case involves the Ansonia, Connecticut, board of education, which allows three paid days off for religious observance. A teacher, Ronald Philbrook, sued when the school district refused to allow him to use his three “personal business” days for additional religious observance. The high court ordered a lower court to determine if the school board did make a “reasonable accommodation” for Philbrook’s religious observance. In the majority opinion, Rehnquist said the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not “impose a duty on the employer to accommodate at all costs.”
The Court heard arguments in another employment case, from Florida, which involves the denial of unemployment compensation to a woman who was fired for religious reasons. A Seventh-day Adventist was fired for “misconduct” when she refused to work on her Sabbath. The state denied her unemployment benefits, saying she caused her own unemployment.
A case that will be argued later this term could have broad implications for all religious groups. The justices will decide whether religious employers are free to hire only members of their own faith even for “nonreligious” jobs. The court will review a 1972 federal law allowing religious organizations to discriminate in favor of members of their faiths. The law is being challenged in the context of a Mormon church requirement that all employees, including a gymnasium building engineer, be Mormon church members in good standing. A federal judge in Utah ruled that religious employers can only discriminate in this way if the job in question relates directly to the group’s religious goals.
Obscenity And Abortion
The Supreme Court justices are scheduled to take a new look at the standards used to judge obscene material. Under a 1973 Supreme Court ruling, material is considered obscene if the average person using contemporary local community standards finds that it appeals to “prurient interests”; if it depicts sexual conduct in a “patently offensive way”; and if it lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
The Court granted hearings to two Illinois store clerks convicted of violating the state’s antiobscenity law by selling sexually explicit magazines. The men say the Illinois statute violates the First Amendment because it allows the use of local community standards rather than an “objective” national standard to label obscene material.
In addition, the Court will consider whether states can require minors seeking abortions to wait 24 hours after telling their parents or a judge about their decision. At issue is the constitutionality of the Illinois Parental Notice Act of 1983. Under the law, an unmarried girl under 18 who is still dependent on her parents, or a girl who is considered “incompetent” by a judge, is required to tell her parents of her intention to abort 24 hours before the operation is performed. The notification may be waived if the girl can prove to a judge that she is mature enough to make her own decision.
A federal appeals court struck down the law in 1984 on the grounds that it infringed on the girl’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that states may require parental notification when minors seek abortions. But three years ago, the Court struck down an Akron, Ohio, ordinance requiring a waiting period for all women.
The high court has already ruled in one abortion case this term. By a 5-to-3 vote the justices, without hearing oral arguments, ruled that Arizona may not cut off state aid to private family-planning groups because they perform abortions or provide abortion counseling. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Byron White and Antonin Scalia voted to hear arguments in the case. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a former Arizona judge, did not participate.
Other Issues
In a California case, the Court will consider whether government-owned airports can ban the distribution of religious literature. The dispute arose between an evangelical group, Jews for Jesus, and the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners. Airport officials barred a Jews for Jesus minister from passing out free literature, saying the airport’s interior must be limited to “airport-related” uses. Jews for Jesus argues that the airport is a traditional public forum similar to a city park or sidewalk. Two lower courts ruled in favor of Jews for Jesus.
In another case, the Court will consider whether Jews may be allowed to pursue racial discrimination suits on the same basis provided for blacks and other minorities under an 1866 civil rights law.
The high court has rejected several cases or allowed lower court rulings to stand. Among them:
- The justices declined to interfere with President Reagan’s decision to establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican.
- A lower court ruling was allowed to stand, deciding that the family of a Christian Scientist may not sue the church for malpractice if spiritual healing fails to cure a loved one.
- The high court let stand a lower court ruling that a nativity scene displayed by itself in front of the Birmingham, Michigan, city hall violated the separation of church and state.
- The justices refused to become embroiled in a legal effort to strip the Roman Catholic Church of its tax-exempt status because of its lobbying efforts against abortion. The Court let stand lower court rulings that prochoice groups have the legal standing to challenge the church’s tax exemption.
By Kim A. Lawton.
