The Becket Fund FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Supreme Court Briefs

Since its founding, the Becket Fund has filed amicus briefs in nearly every U.S. Supreme Court case that has implicated religious liberty issues.  Because of the Becket Fund’s stellar reputation, its amicus briefs have often been cited in the Court’s opinions.  Several of our successes include:

Counsel:

• Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (2012)  In the greatest religious liberty case in 50 years, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously for the Becket Fund, securing the right of religious organizations to choose their ministers without government interference.

Amicus Briefs where our brief was cited, quoted, or heavily relied upon in the Court’s opinion:

• Pleasant Grove v. Summum (2009)   Because a Utah city had chosen to include a Ten Commandments monument—along with other monuments—in its city park, a small religious group wanted to include its own religious monument in the same park, but was denied the permission to do so by the city.  Defending the city’s right to exclude the additional monument, the Becket Fund’s amicus brief argued that the city park displays were government—not private—speech, which meant that the city could legitimately decide which monuments to include and which to exclude.

• Kelo v. City of New London (2005)  The Supreme Court held that the city’s use of eminent domain power to take private property for the purpose of furthering its economic development plan did not run afoul of the constitutional “public use” requirement.In her dissenting opinion, Justice O’Connor (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas) cited the Becket Fund’s amicus brief to highlight the uniquely burdensome effect an expansive view and overuse of eminent domain poses to houses of worship, church schools, and religious social service organizations like soup kitchens.

• Locke v. Davey (2004)  The Supreme Court held that the State of Washington did not violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause by forbidding the use of state-funded scholarship money to receive degrees in devotional theology.Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion took note of the Becket Fund’s brief, which highlighted the anti-Catholic bigotry behind state Blaine Amendments.  (State Blaine Amendments prohibit the use of state funds to support religious institutions such as parochial schools.)  The Court concluded that the relevant Washington state constitutional provision (which also forbade the use of tax funds to support ministers) was not sufficiently related to the Blaine Amendment so its anti-religious history was not implicated in this case.

• Mitchell v. Helms (2000)  In a case challenging the constitutionality of a government school aid program as applied to parochial schools, the Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which had found that the program violated the Establishment Clause.Justice Thomas’s plurality opinion (joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Kennedy) relied on the Becket Fund’s amicus brief, which described the anti-Catholic animus motivating state Blaine Amendments (forbidding state funds from supporting religious institutions).In rejecting a method of analyzing an Establishment Clause challenge by asking whether the benefitted institution is “pervasively sectarian,” Justice Thomas’s opinion echoed the sentiments of the Becket Fund’s brief: “hostility to aid to pervasively sectarian schools has a shameful pedigree that we do not hesitate to disavow” and “[t]his doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.”

Amicus Briefs where the court decided our way:

• Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011)  In a case involving the constitutionality of tax credits for private contributions to private schools, the Becket Fund’s amicus brief argued that state taxpayers lacked standing the bring a lawsuit under the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court agreed, dismissing the case for lack of standing.

• Salazar v. Buono (2009) In a case involving the constitutionality of a cross memorial in the Mojave Desert, the Becket Fund’s amicus brief argued that the court of appeals should be reversed, because the plaintiff lacked standing and that the cross did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court agreed, with two Justices agreeing that the plaintiff lacked standing, and three Justices agreeing that the court of appeals misapplied the Establishment Clause.

• Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)  The Becket Fund’s amicus brief defended against an Establishment Clause challenge to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act’s provision that increases protection for prisoners’ religious rights.  The Supreme Court agreed that the provision was constitutional.

• Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita (2005)  In a case challenging the federal government’s restrictions on a controlled substance— hoasca tea—used in the ceremonies of a religious group, the Becket Fund’s amicus brief defended the constitutionality of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that provides accommodations for religious organizations.  The Supreme Court held that the government had not shown under RFRA’s standard a sufficiently compelling governmental interest to ban the substance for religious use by this group.

• Van Orden v. Perry (2005)  In an Establishment Clause challenge to a Ten Commandments display on the Texas State Capitol grounds, the Becket Fund’s amicus brief argued that such displays are constitutionally protected.  The Supreme Court ruled our way.

• Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2003) In a case involving the constitutionality of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Becket Fund’s amicus brief argued that the words “under God” were permissible cause they reflect our nation’s founding principle that freedom is grounded in an authority higher than the state. Three Justices agreed that the Pledge was constitutional; the other Justices agreed that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing.

• Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)  The Becket Fund’s amicus brief defended the right of a Christian children’s club to use public school facilities that were available to non-religious groups.  The Supreme Court agreed.  It upheld the club’s free speech right and found no Establishment Clause justification for curbing its religious speech.

• Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2001) Does Ohio’s school voucher program violate the Establishment Clause?  The Becket Fund, and the Supreme Court, said “No.”
  

• Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)  In a case where the New Jersey Supreme Court had held that a state public accommodations law required the Boy Scouts to readmit a homosexual leader, the Becket Fund’s brief urged the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the First Amendment right of expressive association concerning religious institutions.  The Supreme Court did just that, ruling that applying the public accommodation law violated the Boy Scout’s First Amendment right of expressive association.

• Agostini v. Felton (1997)  The Becket Fund’s amicus brief urged reversal of a 1985 ruling that prevented disadvantaged children in parochial schools (in contrast to those in public schools) from receiving federal education funds for supplemental instruction by public school teachers.   The Supreme Court ruled our way and overturned the 1985 ruling deciding that allowing public school teachers to instruct on secular subjects at private religious schools did not violate the Establishment Clause.