Hannah Lipman

Hannah Lipman

AP Government and Politics 

Period 8 Feeley

This summer, I read three Supreme Court cases: Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), U.S. v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). These cases demonstrate how the Supreme Court is responsible for the final interpretation of the U.S. Constitution as it applies to legislation. As explained below, the Engel and Citizens United cases interpreted the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Lopez case considered the Commerce Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. All three cases relate to relevant issues in society today.

In 1951, the State Board of Regents of New York created a teacher-led morning prayer for public schools in the Herricks School District. While this prayer was non-denominational and voluntary, students felt pressured to recite it, bow their heads, and press their palms together. A group of parents, including Steven Engel, challenged this act in a New York State Court as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This means that the Establishment Clause prohibits government from preferring one religion over another or preferring religion over non-religion. In 1962, in a 6:1 decision for Engel, the Supreme Court concluded that the public school prayer at issue violated the Establishment Clause; therefore, public schools cannot facilitate prayers, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). The Court ruled that even though the prayer was not tied to any religion and was not a mandatory obligation for students, it still infringed upon the separation of church and state. The case was decided by the Warren Court. Earl Warren was the Chief Justice between 1953-1969. The Warren era is often characterized by the emergence of judicial liberalism because of the reform that took place during this time period and the liberalism exemplified by cases like Engel v. Vitale and decisions regarding civil rights. Chief Justice Warren voted with the majority in this case, and the majority opinion was written by Hugo L. Black. The case originated in the New York State Supreme Court which upheld the legality of the prayer, citing its voluntary nature. That decision was affirmed by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division and then the New York Court of Appeals before making its way to the United State Supreme Court. The First Amendment and the principle of separation of church and state are most closely related to Engel v. Vitale because the case involved a dispute about whether a teacher-led organized prayer in a public school amounts to the state promoting the establishment of a religion. Today, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Engel v. Vitale are often relied on when discussing religion’s role in school events like athletics and graduations. For example, in February of 2018, a Mahoning County school district in Ohio stopped prayers before sporting events after the practice was challenged for violating the Establishment Clause. However, this halt was only temporary because it was determined that the prayer was student-led and not coach mandated. In contrast, Engel v. Vitale set precedent for the illegality of prayers that are promoted by the school, teachers, or the administration because that violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In 1990, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act which states that it is illegal for “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone.” In 1992, Alfonzo Lopez, a high school senior, carried a concealed firearm into his school in San Antonio, Texas. He was initially charged under Texas law with possession of a firearm on school property but then later charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act. He was found guilty and then appealed, arguing that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution because it was an overreach of federal power. In a split (5:4) decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lopez, overturning his conviction. The Court agreed that the Gun-Free School Zones Act was a breach of federal power outlined in the Commerce Clause. U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The Supreme Court explained that the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, but possession of a firearm is not an economic activity; thus, a ruling in favor of the federal government upholding the gun regulation would infringe on state powers. The Lopez case was decided by the Rehnquist Court which was generally more conservative than preceding courts with legislation decisions that often protected the rights of the majority. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in favor of Lopez. He reasoned that if the regulation of firearms is connected to interstate commerce, then virtually any activity can be policed. His decision put limits on federal power. Originally, Lopez was convicted following a bench trial in a federal district court which sentenced him to six months imprisonment and two years supervised release. Then, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. Finally, the U.S. government appealed to the Supreme Court which reviewed the case. The Commerce Clause in Article 1 of the Constitution is most closely related to this case. The Commerce Clause states that the federal government has the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." U.S. v. Lopez considered whether or not gun regulation could be considered an economic activity that the federal government can regulate. Indirectly, this case can also be applied to the 10th Amendment which states that powers not explicitly delegated by the Constitution are reserved to the states. U.S. v. Lopez is often referred to as a landmark case for federalism, the sharing of power between the federal and state governments, because it shows that the federal government’s powers are limited. Interestingly, this case was not a Second Amendment case but instead about federalism. An issue today involving federalism and the Commerce Clause is the legalization of medical and recreational marijuana by states. Gonzalez v Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), cites and discusses both the Lopez case and the Commerce Clause. In Gonzalez, the Court distinguished Lopez and ruled that Congress has the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law, because the Commerce Clause regulates local activities that fall under a “class of activities” substantially influencing interstate commerce, including the marijuana market. Not only has statewide legalization of marijuana become even more controversial in today’s political climate, but Gonzalez v. Raich could justify a single backyard plant being regulated by the federal government because it has the potential to affect national markets.

Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, created a documentary called Hillary: The Movie. The Federal Election Commission, applying Sections 201 and 203 of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), determined that elections can not be paid for by corporate funds in the way Citizens United attempted to with its movie. In a 5:4 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). The Supreme Court held that political spending by corporations is protected speech under the First Amendment and government cannot prevent corporations and unions from spending money to support or oppose political candidates. After this, the long-standing limits on corporations and labor unions spending money on elections fell. Despite some liberal decisions, the Roberts Court which decided this case is generally considered conservative. Chief Justice John G. Roberts joined Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas who all followed the majority opinion written by Anthony M. Kennedy. Chief Justice Roberts also wrote an opinion that emphasized that the Court takes time in handling constitutional issues and tries to avoid doing so when possible; however, the First Amendment was integral to this case. Initially, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against Citizens United, citing McConnell v. FEC (2003). Then, in accordance with special rules in the BCRA, Citizens United appealed directly to the Supreme Court to review the lower court’s decision. The First Amendment is most closely related to Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), because it considered the right to free speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. This summer on July 30, 2019, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and 45 Democratic Senators reintroduced the Democracy for All Amendment which would become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In practice, this amendment would overturn Citizens United v. FEC and place limits on corporations’ spending powers in elections. Since Citizens United, corporations and wealthy donors have been able to spend unlimited amounts of undisclosed money to influence elections. However, this new amendment would indirectly place limits on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment if it is assumed that corporations are entities with the same constitutional rights as citizens.

Although people may agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in specific cases, the Engel, Lopez, and Citizen United cases show the importance of separation of powers and the Supreme Court's role as a co-equal branch of government. In these three cases, the Supreme Court served as a final check on Congress and a state board of regents when it found that a public school prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, overturned the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 for exceeding Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause, and found that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prevented Congress from restricting political spending by corporations and unions.

Works Cited

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205. Accessed 17 Aug. 2019.

"Engel v. Vitale." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468. Accessed 17 Aug. 2019.

"Gonzales v. Raich." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454. Accessed 17 Aug. 2019.

Pinckard, Cliff. Ohio School District Halts Prayers before Athletic Events. Cleveland.com, 1 Feb. 2018, www.cleveland.com/metro/2018/02/ohio_school_district_halts_pra.html. Accessed 17 Aug. 2019.

Udall, Tom. "The Super-Wealthy Have Outsize Influence in Politics. Here's How We Can Change That." Time, 14 Aug. 2019, time.com/5651417/constitutional-amendment-campaign-finance/. Accessed 17 Aug. 2019.

"United States v. Lopez." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260. Accessed 17 Aug. 2019.