Legal Case Briefing - Essay Example

Case Brief Clever v. Cherry Hill Board of Education, 838 F. Supp. 929 (D.N.J. 1993). Issues The main issue in the Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education is whether or not a New Jerssey public school educational policy offended the Establishment Clause contained in the both the US and New Jersey Constitution. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) The school’s educational policy encouraged student awareness of diverse cultural, ethnic and religious themes. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) The establisment clause contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution provides that Congress shall not make laws that respect any specific religion or prohit “the free exercise thereof”. (US Constitution, 1st Amendment) Art 1 of the New Jersey Constitution 1947 likewise forbids the “establishment of one religious sect in preference to another.” (New Jersey Constitution 1947, Article 1) Article 1 also forbids requiring a “religious or racial test…as a qualification for any office or public trust.” (New Jersey Constitution 1947, Article 1) The main issue with respect to these provisions was whether or not the New Jersey public school district’s educational policy as practiced with the display of secular and non-secular holidays on its school calenders offended these Establishment Clauses. Preliminary issues resolved before proceeding with the main issue included standing and ripeness. In other words the defendant School Board challenged the various defendant’s rights to pursue the action and whether or not the action contained a triable issue under the Constitutional clauses it was brought under. Holding: On the preliminary issues the court ruled that the since the educational policy had already been instituted the Constitutional issue was triable and therefore the action contained the necessary ripeness for adjudication. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) As for the issue of standing the court ruled that parents of children who were students in the school district had perhaps the greatest interests in the adjudication of the issues than anyone else. The parents would therefore remain parties to the aciton. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) The plaintiff Clever would also survive the challenge to standing since the court found that he had property in the area and was a taxpayer. Clever’s tax money was used to fund the school district thereby giving him an interest in the educational policy currently before the court. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) On the main issue the court ruled that the educational policy of the New Jersey public school district did not offend the Establishment Clauses and noted that: “Christmas and Chanukah are celebrated as cultural and national holidays as well as religious ones, and there is simply no constitutional doctrine which would forbid school children from sharing in that celebration, provided that these celebrations do not constitute an unconstitutional endoresment of religion and are consistent with a school’s secular educational mission.” (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) The New Jersey District Court went on to note the importance of studyng religious traditions in a country as diverse as that of the United States. Moreover, the display of the symbols and holidays were entirely passive and students were not compelled in any way to participate in a particular or any religion. There was also no emphasis or peference for any particular holiday or religion. In all the circumstances the act of displaying religious and non-religious holidays and symbols did not offend the Establishment Clauses. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) Under the Code of Virginia, Chapter 13, Sections 22.1.202.1 the Board of Education can authorize local school districts to offer religious studies as an elective to students from grade nine to 12. (Code of Virginina, Ch. 13, Sections 22.1.202.1) Since such a course is an elective it will fall within the reasoning of the court in Clever v Cherry Hill. As such the fact that the course are elective and not mandatory, means that they do not offend the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution. Facts: The action was filed on behalf of parents of students within the Cherry Hill, New Jersey School district and taxpayers. The claim was against the Cherry Hill Education Board and challenged the consitutionality of the school district’s educational policy which permitted the display of religious holidays on school calenders by religious symbols and the display of symbols in classrooms and other common areas of the schools. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) Among the holidays and observances marked are Election Day, Veterhans Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Birthday of Baha’u’llah, Divali (Hindu), Schichi-so-san Seven, Five, Three Festival (Japan), Nanaka’s Birthsay (Sikh), Bodhi Day Budha’s Enlightenment, Chanukah, Kwanzaa and Christmas. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) Analysis: The New Jersey District Court drew on previous rulings of the US Surpreme Court for the purpose of determining whether or not the Cherry Hill Board offended the Establishment Clause contained in the US Constitution. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) The main US Supreme Court case on the subject is Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 US 602. From that case the court derived a three-tier test referred to as the Lemon test which was applied to the facts and issues in Clever v Cherry Hill. The Lemon test which determines if a particular policy is consistent with the Establishment Clause was articulated as follows: “first, the policy must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principla or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally the policy must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.” (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) In applying the Lemon test the court looks to see if the policy in question is designed to “endorse or disapprove of religion”. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) Clearly the purpose of the display of secular and non-secular symbols was for the purely educational purposes and showed no preferances for one religion or holiday over another. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) As the court ruled, the religious symbols in question had a “genuine and demonstrable secular purpose.” (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) Had the displays been presented in such a way as to foster “unwanted religious messages to the student viewers” the matter would have been decided differently. The fact remains, the symbols and markings were merely presented as educational tools. The court felt and rightly so that religion is a “human phenomenon” and as such is “an appropriate” subject for secular education. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) The display of the symbols are no more than a teaching aid. Applying the second prong of the Lemon test, the court ruled that an objective oberver could not have reasonably viewed the display of religious symbols as a cooersive or persuasive measure toward one religion or another. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) As for the third prong of the Lemon test, the court found that the US Supreme Court has not provided much guidance on the queston of excessive entanglement in the manner in which a policy presents religion. Given the absence of such guidance the Court was not prepared to rule that the display of symbols in the Clever case engaged excessive religious entanglement because to do so would force the school to abandon religious teaching altogether. That could not have been the Supreme Court’s intention. (Clever v Cherry Hill Board of Education, 1993) Bibliography Clever v. Cherry Hill Board of Education, 838 F. Supp. 929 (D.N.J. 1993) Code of Virginina, Ch. 13 New Jersey Constitution 1947 US Constitution Read More