Citizens United V FEC: Nonprofit Wanted To Air Movie Argumen

Citizens United V Fecnonprofit Wanted To Air Movie Arguing Hilary

Citizens United v. FEC involves a nonprofit organization that wanted to air a movie arguing that Hillary Clinton was an unsuitable presidential candidate. The core issue revolves around whether corporations have the right to free political speech, notably the broadcasting of political messages, and how government restrictions on such speech are evaluated legally. This case exemplifies the ongoing debate about the extent of corporate First Amendment rights, particularly in the context of political campaigns.

The central question being addressed is whether corporations possess the right of freedom of religion and speech. Proponents argue that corporations, as associations of individuals, are entitled to free speech, including political expression. Conversely, critics, such as Gursmran, contend that corporations should not have the same rights as individuals, especially when it comes to religious liberty or political influence, emphasizing the distinction between individual rights and organizational rights.

The constitutional framework concerning religious rights includes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause aims to prevent government endorsement of religion, creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. This wall's height and interpretation have been subjects of debate, with courts employing various tests like the Lemon test, the Endorsement test, and the Coercion test to evaluate cases involving religious displays or practices.

The Lemon test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, assesses whether a law has a secular purpose, whether its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and whether it fosters excessive government entanglement with religion. The Endorsement test evaluates whether a government action could be perceived as endorsing religion, which would violate the Establishment Clause, based on the context and perception of religious symbols or displays.

Various court cases have applied these tests, such as Wallace v. Jaffree and McCullom & Zorach, which involved moments of silence or prayer in schools, often striking down laws that lacked a clear secular purpose or that appeared to endorse religion. The principle of neutrality—treating religious and non-religious individuals equally—has evolved through rulings like Mergens and Mitchell v. Helms, emphasizing that government actions should not favor or discriminate against particular religious groups.

Regarding the Free Exercise Clause, the courts generally employ strict scrutiny when evaluating laws that burden religious practice. Cases such as Epperson and Edwards centered on whether laws had a secular purpose and did not discriminate against religion. In emerging principles, courts aim to accommodate religious practices unless compelling governmental interests override such rights, as seen in controversies over public displays with religious symbols or practices that could be perceived as endorsement or coercion.

There is ongoing debate about the appropriateness of these tests and the balance between religious freedom and government neutrality, with critics arguing that some tests overly restrict religious expression or fail to adequately protect individuals' rights. The principle of neutrality advocates for government actions that do not discriminate or favor particular religious views, fostering an environment of religious accommodation and tolerance.

Paper For Above instruction

The question of whether corporations possess the right to freedom of religion is complex and rooted in broader constitutional interpretations. Under the First Amendment, freedom of religion primarily protects individual persons, but the jurisprudence has extended certain religious rights to corporate entities, especially in cases involving religious corporations or organizations. This extension recognizes that corporations composed of individuals may have religious beliefs they seek to uphold, but it raises questions about the limits and scope of such rights, particularly in the context of commercial speech and political influence.

The landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) solidified the principle that corporations have a First Amendment right to political speech. The Supreme Court held that restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations violated the free speech clause. This ruling underscored that political speech is central to First Amendment protections. However, the question remains whether corporations should also enjoy protections related to religious freedom. In general, the courts have held that religious rights are primarily individual rights; the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and certain Supreme Court rulings support religious freedom as a fundamental right that applies to individuals and religious organizations, but the application to corporations is more nuanced.

Legal doctrines such as the Lemon test, Endorsement test, and Coercion test are integral to evaluating cases involving religious display or practice in government settings. The Lemon test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, emphasizes a secular purpose, effect, and entanglement, serving as the primary framework for assessing government actions that impact religion. The Endorsement test evaluates whether a government action could be perceived as endorsing religion, which would violate the Establishment Clause. The Coercion test asks whether the government action coerces individuals to participate in or support religion.

Among these, the Lemon test has faced criticism, particularly for its rigidity and complexity. Some legal scholars argue that it can produce inconsistent results or overreach when applied to religious displays or practices. For example, in cases involving religious symbols in public spaces, courts have sometimes struggled to determine whether the display has a secular purpose or inadvertently endorses religion. The endorsement test, used notably in cases involving religious displays or government-sponsored religious messages, emphasizes perception and context—whether a reasonable observer would perceive an endorsement of religion.

In debates about the separation of church and state, the courts have adopted a nuanced approach that balances religious freedom with government neutrality. Situations like the display of religious symbols, the teaching of religious doctrines in public schools, and the accommodation of religious practices in the workplace all require careful evaluation under these tests. For instance, the display of a religious nativity scene around Christmas may be lawful if accompanied by secular symbols, indicating an acknowledged principle of neutrality. Conversely, a religious display that appears to promote a particular faith may violate the Establishment Clause.

Regarding which test the court should embrace or whether they need reform, many scholars favor a flexible, context-aware approach that emphasizes neutrality and accommodation without favoring or oppressing religious groups. The Lemon test’s three-pronged approach, though historically significant, has been criticized for its inconsistencies. A modern reinterpretation or replacement that focuses on whether a government action fosters an environment of neutrality and respect for religious diversity could better serve constitutional principles.

The jurisprudence surrounding the free exercise of religion, especially for minors and in public spaces like schools, presents additional challenges. Cases like Epperson and Edwards demonstrate that laws lacking a secular purpose violate constitutional protections. Yet, courts recognize that compelling governmental interests—such as public safety or order—may justify certain limitations on religious practices. The courts lean toward a balancing approach, considering individual rights alongside societal interests, but remain cautious of laws that are based on hostility or discrimination against religion.

Problems with the current jurisprudence include ambiguities in applying tests and the risk of applying them inconsistently. For example, determining whether a display signifies endorsement can be subjective and context-dependent. Additionally, the "rights" of corporations to religious expression encounter legal limits, primarily because religious rights are traditionally granted to individuals, not organizations. This distinction warns against extending religious rights to entities whose primary purpose is profit-making, avoiding potential conflicts with public interests and separation principles.

In conclusion, the court should adopt a more balanced, flexible doctrine that emphasizes neutrality and accommodation. It should preserve core protections of religious free exercise while preventing government or corporate actions from endorsing or coercing religious beliefs. The emphasis should be on respecting individual religious freedoms within an environment that fosters pluralism and prevents favoritism or discrimination. Reforming the existing tests into a more coherent framework would help clarify legal standards and better uphold constitutional principles in diverse societal contexts.

References

• Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
• Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
• McCullom v. Zorach, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
• Mergens v. Westlake Schools, 496 U.S. 226 (1990).
• Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000).
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
• FindLaw. (2015). US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments. Retrieved from https://www.findlaw.com.
• Hanley, K. (2011). Fourth Amendment protections for juvenile offenders: State, parent, and minor interests. Harvard Law Review.
• Brank, E. M., & Scott, L. (2014). Parental responsibility for juveniles’ acts. Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
• Squires, P. (2014). Debating the ups and downs of youth justice. Social Policy.