Three Cases, One Trend: Analyzing John Roberts' Approach To Church-State Separation

Viktoria Ivanova

6 min read

Post on May 02, 2025

5.0

Share

Carson v. Makin (2022): Tuition Assistance and Religious Schools

This case involved Maine's tuition assistance program, which allowed parents in districts without public secondary schools to send their children to private schools, but excluded schools that provided religious instruction. Parents challenged this exclusion, arguing it violated their free exercise rights.

Background of the Case:

Maine's program aimed to provide equal educational opportunities, but its exclusion of religious schools sparked a constitutional debate. Parents argued that the state's policy discriminated against their religious beliefs by denying them the same tuition assistance available to those attending secular private schools.

Roberts' Opinion:

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, held that the exclusion of religious schools violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that excluding religious schools from a generally available tuition program constituted impermissible discrimination based on religious status.

• Key arguments used by the majority: The majority emphasized the principle of non-discrimination, arguing that the state could not exclude schools solely because they provided religious instruction. They relied on the principle of religious neutrality, stating that the state should not favor or disfavor religious schools over secular ones in the provision of public benefits.
• Dissenting opinions and their main points: The dissenting justices argued that the state had a legitimate interest in avoiding the establishment of religion, and that the exclusion of religious schools was a reasonable way to achieve this goal. They expressed concerns about the potential for public funds to be used to support religious indoctrination.
• Impact of the ruling on state funding of religious schools: Carson v. Makin significantly broadened the scope of religious freedom, suggesting a more expansive interpretation of the free exercise clause when it comes to state funding of religious schools. The ruling may encourage similar challenges to state programs that discriminate against religious institutions.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022): Teacher Prayer and Public Schools

This case involved Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach, who engaged in personal prayer on the field after games. The Bremerton School District asked him to refrain from these prayers, fearing it could be perceived as endorsement of religion by the school.

Background of the Case:

Kennedy's prayer practice, visible to players and spectators, became a point of contention. The school district's concern centered on avoiding the appearance of endorsing religion, a key aspect of the establishment clause.

Roberts' Opinion:

Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion focused on the free speech rights of the coach, emphasizing that his prayers were personal expressions, not school-sponsored events. The Court reasoned that prohibiting Kennedy's prayer would violate his First Amendment rights.

• Discussion of the free exercise clause and its application to public employees: The Court acknowledged the free exercise clause but primarily framed the case as a free speech issue, focusing on Kennedy's right to personal expression.
• Analysis of the potential for coercion or endorsement of religion: The majority downplayed the potential for coercion, arguing that students were not compelled to participate in the prayers. They distinguished between a public employee's private expression and government endorsement.
• Dissenting justices' arguments against the majority opinion: Dissenting justices argued that the majority's ruling ignored the establishment clause, potentially leading to the unconstitutional endorsement of religion in public schools. They highlighted the potential for coercive pressure on students to participate in the coach's religious practices.

American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019): The Bladensburg Peace Cross

This case concerned a 40-foot-tall cross erected on public land in Bladensburg, Maryland, as a World War I memorial. The American Humanist Association challenged the cross’s presence, arguing that it constituted an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

Background of the Case:

The Peace Cross, a prominent landmark, had stood for nearly a century. The legal challenge highlighted the complexities of balancing historical context with the establishment clause's prohibition of government endorsement of religion.

Roberts' Opinion:

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, ruled that the cross did not violate the establishment clause. The Court focused on the cross’s long-standing presence and its historical significance, arguing that its removal would be an act of government censorship.

• Discussion of the "Lemon test" and its application in the case: While not explicitly relying on the Lemon test (secular purpose, neither advances nor inhibits religion, no excessive entanglement), the Court considered the monument's historical context as a significant factor, suggesting a departure from a strict application of the test.
• Examination of the majority's approach to historical monuments and religious symbols: The Court emphasized the importance of considering the historical context and the passage of time in assessing the constitutionality of religious symbols on public land.
• Analysis of the dissenting opinions and their critiques of the majority: The dissenting justices argued that the majority's decision ignored the principle of government neutrality and created a dangerous precedent, potentially legitimizing the display of religious symbols on public land.

Conclusion: Interpreting Chief Justice Roberts' Approach to Church-State Separation

The three cases analyzed reveal a complex and evolving approach by Chief Justice Roberts to church-state separation. While he frequently invokes principles of religious freedom and non-discrimination, his interpretations often prioritize historical context and the avoidance of government coercion, sometimes at the expense of a strict adherence to the establishment clause. His decisions have broadened the scope of religious freedom in certain contexts but also raised concerns about the potential for government endorsement of religion. The common thread is a pragmatic balancing act, attempting to navigate the nuances of the First Amendment's free exercise and establishment clauses. The long-term implications of his jurisprudence remain to be seen, shaping the future of religious freedom and the establishment clause in the years to come.

To stay informed on the evolving interpretation of church-state separation under Chief Justice Roberts, continue your research by exploring recent Supreme Court decisions addressing similar issues and engaging with scholarly commentary on the evolving dynamics of religious freedom in public life.