The document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to the intersection of government policy and religious freedom protections in the First Amendment. It begins with Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940), where the Supreme Court initially ruled against Jehovah's Witness students who refused to salute the flag for religious reasons, but later reversed this decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). It then discusses several other cases where religious groups or individuals challenged government policies on First Amendment grounds, including a Ten Commandments display, a contraception mandate, and a Muslim inmate's request to grow a beard. Overall, the document examines how the Supreme Court has interpreted the religious clauses of the First Amendment over

1. Adams-Wiley1
The Founding Fathers constructed the Bill of Rights to protect Americans from
government laws violating against the people’s free will. The First Amendment in the Bill of
Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (U.S. Constitution, 1791). Since the 1940s, our
religious liberty has been diminished. There are religious groups that protest against the
government for not preserving their right to exercise religion. On the other hand, there are non-
religious groups that protest the government’s involvement by how they created religious
policies enacted in their daily life. Therefore the arguments of the evolvement of government’s
involvement in American lives have progressed by their policies and how these policies affect
Americans nationwide.
In 1933, the Nazis banned Jehovah Witnesses and sent them to concentration camps
because they refused to salute the Nazi flag (Konkoly, 2006). In 1935, Joseph Rutherford, a
leader of the Jehovah Witnesses, responded to the his community through radio airwaves asking
for the Jehovah Witnesses to refuse the salute to the American flag because of what the Nazis
were doing to the Jehovah Witnesses in Germany (Konkoly, 2006). In 1940, two children of the
Gobitis family were students of the Minersville School District of Pennsylvania that refused to
comply with the government school’s policy to salute to the American flag (Gobitis, 1940). They
claimed it was against their religious faith. In the Jehovah Witness faith they believe saluting a
flag or any other object is worshipping an idol and this action is a violation of God’s will. These
students were told by their parents to not salute the flag because of what Mr. Rutherford had
announced (Konkoly, 2006). Mr. Gobitis, the children’s father, sued the school because the
school district had expelled the children for violating school policy. This led to a financial
hardship for the Gobitis family because the children were no longer provided with free public

2. Adams-Wiley2
school and they had to join a private school which required the family money (Gobitis, 1940).
The Justice Frankfurter claimed that “National unity is the bases of national security” and the
children should respect the nation for providing that security (Reynolds, 1998, p.74). Justice
Stone argued that by forcing the students to comply with a government policy that violates their
religious beliefs then therefore “…violates their deepest religious convictions” (Reynolds, 1998,
p. 75). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Gobitis children based on its assumption that
“training in patriotic impulses by those compulsions which necessarily pervade so much of the
educational process is not for our independent judgment” (Gobitis, 1940, p. 1). Therefore, Justice
Frankfurter ruled that “the government has the right to preserve itself and to enforce national
security” (Reynolds, 1998, p.79).
In 1943, the West Virginia Board of Education created a policy that all students and
teachers had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every school morning (Barnette, 1943). The West
Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett case also presented legislation creating education in
schools intended to educate students on the importance of Americanism and the duty to support
the American nation. However, it was in the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion that if any felt that he
was forced to salute and pledge to the flag against his will then it was considered tyranny. The
justices stated that every teacher has the right to teach any type of religion as long as it was for
historical purposes. The justices made it clear that a mere salute to a flag is but a symbol of
patriotism and what a person puts into this symbol is all in the mind (Barnette, 1943). Therefore,
as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said in this case, “…what is one man's comfort and
inspiration is another's jest and scorn” (Barnette, 1943, p. 1). Chief Justice Hughes claims that
any symbol, such as a flag as long as it is a peaceful demonstration, is protected by the free
speech clause; therefore, a salute to a flag is warranted. Jehovah Witnesses considered the flag

3. Adams-Wiley3
salute worshipping other gods and therefore against their religion, as was the case of Minersville
School District v. Gobitis (Barnette, 1943). Even though the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the First
Amendment and ruled in favor for the Barnette case, the “state-imposed obligations that the
children and their parents contended were acts of idolatry that violated Biblical commands”,
therefore the state violated their rights by imposing policies against their beliefs (Abrams, 2011,
p. 22).
In the 2013 New Mexico case of Felix and B. Coone v. City of Bloomfield involved
Jane Felix and B.N. Coone claimed that the Ten Commandments portraying on the city lawn of
Bloomfield, New Mexico is a violation of their civil liberties because they do not religiously
believe in God or the Ten Commandments (Felix and Coone, 2013). They felt the city was
forcing religion on them by displaying the Ten Commandments from the Bible on city property
(Felix and Coone, 2013). The Ten Commandments monument was placed on the city of
Bloomfield City Hall lawn on July 4, 2011, by the citizens of Bloomfield (Felix and Coone,
2013). A conservative law firm in Washington D.C. called the Alliance Defending Freedom
began representing Bloomfield after a law suit was filed in February 2012 by ACLU on behalf of
the Wiccans (Gryboski, 2014). The director of ACLU, Peter Simonson claimed that if the Ten
Commandments were built off government property then there would be no issues (Gryboski,
2014). Simonson also claims that if the religious community has the right to defend themselves
they may do so as long as religion doctrine is not being orchestrated on government property
(Gryboski, 2014). The Bloomfield attorney Lane stated that he was “’…not aware separation of
church and state provision in the U.S. Constitution’" (Gryboski, 2014, page 1). Attorney Lane
states that the Ten Commandments is a historical monument and the private citizens built this on
the lawn and not the city of Bloomfield (Gryboski, 2014). The Plaintiffs claim that the location

4. Adams-Wiley4
where they built this historical monument violated the establishment clause (Felix and Coone,
2013). The Establishment Clause states that what is disputed must have pass three steps in order
to be declared constitutional. It must firstly have a secular purpose. Secondly, it must not harm or
advance religion. Thirdly, is it must not tangle between church and state (Felix and Coone,
2013). It was in the Supreme Court’s opinion and ruled immunity for the defendants because
“…it is not clear that their specific conduct violated the Establishment Clause” (Felix and Coone,
2013, page 1). They based this rule on the fact that they were not present when the vote for the
monument had taken placed (Felix and Boone, 2013). According to the Bloomfield policy they
are allowed to place any historical monument on their lawn whether it is religious or non-
religious (Felix and Coone, 2013). For this purpose the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
Bloomfield regardless of the Wiccans belief.
The 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby involved a government
healthcare law forcing companies to provide different types of health insurance. As a religious
based company, Hobby Lobby was required to provide birth control for their employees although
it was against their religious faith. The Supreme Court ruled based on their review of the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The act states that the government must not take
“…any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the
least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest” (Burwell, 2014). The
Supreme Court found in a ruling of five to four, that the government agency of the Health and
Human Services violated Hobby Lobby’s religious beliefs (Burwell, 2014). Therefore, Hobby
Lobby did not have to comply in providing a specific kind of birth contraception since it violates
their beliefs. Justice Alito stated that the government healthcare law violates religious liberties.
Justice Alito also said that women need help with birth control but it can be done without

5. Adams-Wiley5
violating religious rights (Liptak, 2014). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued strongly against
“…the majority opinion as a radical overhaul of corporate rights, one she said could apply to all
corporations and to countless laws” (Liptak, 2014, Page 1). Justice Ginsburg said that because of
this ruling then all sorts of antidiscrimination laws may be jeopardized (Liptak, 2014).
In the 2014 Colorado case of Hickenlooper v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.
involved Governor Hickenlooper issuing a National Prayer day. The Freedom from religion
foundation, Inc. claimed that the governor’s action infringed on their rights since they freely
exercise their First Amendment right to not believe in prayer. The Freedom from Religion
Foundation, Inc. represented an atheist group that was suing Governor John Hickenlooper for
declaring a National Prayer Day on the grounds that it was unconstitutional (Adams, 2014).
However, the atheist group lost the suit due to the Colorado’s Supreme Court ruling stating that
the, “prosecutors failed to show that the statewide Day of Prayer harmed nonbelievers or
restricted their constitutional rights” (Adams, 2014, page 1). Dan Barker, co-president of the
Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., criticized the justices’ ruling claiming that based on the
Colorado’s Constitution their decision “’guts the no preference clause of the Colorado State
Constitution saying no preference shall be “'given by law to any religious denomination or mode
of worship'" (Adams, -2014, Page 1). The Supreme Court of Colorado further explained their
ruling stating that they found no evidence of injury for using public funds to issue a state wide
prayer (Hickenlooper, 2014). The justices’ found that the atheist group’s claim to injury through
media by itself cannot cause harm to an individual (Hickenlooper, 2014). The atheist group is
defined in this case as non-believers who argue the government’s violation of Colorado’s
Preference Clause. The Supreme Court of Colorado claims there was not enough evidence to
support their claim (Hickenlooper, 2014).

6. Adams-Wiley6
In the 2015 Arkansas case of Holt v. Hobbs involved a Muslim Arkansas inmate
requesting to exercise his religious right to grow a beard because it is a part of his religious faith
(Holt, 2015). The Arkansas Department of Corrections, their policy “prohibits inmates from
growing beards unless they have a particular dermatological condition” (Holt, 2015 p. 1). The
Court found that the Arkansas Department of Corrections was in violation of the “the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA)” (Holt, 2015, p.1). The act
ensures that a state or local government cannot interfere with using action that hinders an
institutionalized person’s right to exercise their religious beliefs unless the government’s actions
are the least restrictive in an overwhelming interest (Holt, 2015). The U.S. Supreme Court
reversed the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and claimed that the Arkansas Department
of Corrections failed to provide evidence of showing less restrictive means and therefore violated
the inmates rights (Holt, 2015).
Based on the research of these cases, the 1940 Gobitis case showed how important the
First Amendment plays in an American life. The Jehovah Witnesses’ belief that no one should
worship any idol played a role in their law suit on the grounds that saluting to the American flag
was worshipping an object. This goes against their belief (Gobitis, 1940). They felt that the
public school was infringing on their religious right by writing a policy that anyone that does not
salute to the American flag is considered defiance against the country and those that commit
such action will be punished accordingly (Gobitis, 1940). Since the Gobitis children violated
school policy, they were expelled from public school. The children had no choice but to enter in
a private school causing a financial hardship on the Gobitis family. The Minersville School
District lost based on the Justices interpretation of the First Amendment mentioning that the
government can make no law or policy that may hinder or advance religion (Gobitis, 1940). The

7. Adams-Wiley7
Justices’ decision to rule on behalf of the Gobitis family was because the school’s policy was
found unconstitutional. Therefore, the fact that the Gobitis family had to sue over their rights
being infringed upon shows that government involvement in schools tried to suppress religious
rights.
The 1943 Barnette case was decided based from the Gobitis case. The Justices ruled on
behalf of the Barnette family. This case was being decided during a war time period. The West
Virginia Board of Education created a school policy that made it mandatory for teachers to teach
the importance of Americanism and loyalty to America. This policy was in hopes to “’… inspire
patriotism and love of country’” (Barnette, 1943, Page 1). Therefore the Justices’ decision was
based on the idea that the conflict in the Barnette case was a problem between the school and
parents. The Jehovah Witness community was being prosecuted for refusal to comply with
school policy. They felt the policy was a belief system and this system violated their religious
belief. The Jehovah Witnesses claimed that according to the book of Exodus, no one should
make any image to worship (Barnette, 1943). The students’ refusal to salute to the flag caused
many of them to be expelled and their parents were being charged for delinquency (Barnette,
1943). Chief Justice Hughes led the court making a strong argument for both sides on this case.
He claimed that leading every school in a pledge to a symbol was merely a symbol of patriotism
and the pledge is not worshipping to any image (Barnette, 1943). On the other hand, he also
claimed that if anyone refused to salute then it is the individual rights to not salute and should not
be punished (Barnette, 1943). To punish a student and their parent for exercising their First and
Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional (Barnette, 1943). The Barnette case was another
example of government policy trying to restrain individuals’ civil liberties.

8. Adams-Wiley8
As time progressed into the 21st century, government involvement in everyday American
citizens’ lives still continues to violate their civil liberties. America has been trending toward a
lesser religious nation. Although America still has strong religious communities, there are more
non-religious communities that have developed. In the 2013 case, Felix and Boone were non-
religious and felt that the City of Bloomfield violated their First Amendment rights. Since the
city displayed a monument of religious values on tax payer’s property, they felt the city was
imposing religion on them (Felix and Boone, 2013). Felix and Boone lost the case due to the
argument on behalf of the city that the religious icon of the Ten Commandments was for
historical purposes and the Supreme Court agreed that legislators are immune from any suites
concerning legislation on behalf of the public (Felix and Boone, 2013). The city said that all of
their monuments were historical related and were not meant for promoting religion (Felix and
Boone, 2013). Felix and Boone claimed a violation based on the fact that they pay taxes on the
property that displays a religious object that they did not consent being built in the first place and
the government made that decision on their behalf.
In 2010 the Affordable Care Act was passed. This was to ensure that everyone had
insurance. This is another example of government involvement in American lives. In the 2014
case of Burwell v Hobby Lobby involved a conflict of the Affordable Healthcare Law
incorporating forceful policies that required Hobby Lobby to provide birth control to all of their
employees. Hobby Lobby was informed by Sylvia Burwell, head of the Health and Human
Services, that under the Affordable Care Act, every business has to provide healthcare coverage
for all employees including the coverage of all types of birth control (Hobby Lobby, 2014).
Hobby Lobby is a family oriented Christian based company. They felt that the government’s new
law infringed on their religious rights by forcing them to provide birth control. The Supreme

9. Adams-Wiley9
Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby stating that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
the regulations under the Affordable Care Act has violated the company owner’s rights to
exercise their religious beliefs freely by forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for birth control that
violates their religious beliefs (Hobby Lobby, 2014). Most discussion about the conflict between
Hobby lobby and the contraception mandate has become equally divided within the society
(Horwitz, 2014). The one side of society said against the law that the contraception mandate is as
“’trampling’ or ‘assault[ing]’ religious liberty” (Horwitz, 2014, p. 156). The other side of the
argument warned that if Hobby Lobby won their case then it would endanger “civil rights laws”
(Horwitz, 2014, p.156). The regularity of government control in American lives has become
more common by creating laws that infringe on their First Amendment rights, whether the
people are religious or non-religious.
Since 2004, Colorado has participated in state-wide national prayer. A few residents of
Colorado claiming to be members of an organization called Freedom from Religion Foundation,
Inc., tried to sue Governor Hickenlooper for declaring a state-wide national prayer day
(Hickenlooper, 2014). Their claim is that by the governor declaring the citizens to pray it
infringes on their First Amendment right because they do not believe in prayer (Hickenlooper,
2014). Therefore, the declaration to pray was causing mental harm to them for having been
forced to participate in prayer (Hickenlooper, 2014). The organization claimed the Governor
violated the Preference Clause by including biblical references and the government is supposed
to keep church and state separate (Hickenlooper, 2014). However, The Supreme Court Justices
ruled in favor of the Governor because the organization failed to show any evidence of their
claim that the Governor caused any such harm (Hickenlooper, 2014). Therefore, the U.S.
Supreme Court rejected their suit and had the charges dismissed (Hickenlooper, 2014). The

10. Adams-Wiley 10
Hickenlooper case can be used as an example of how much involvement the government is in the
American lives. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to protect the American people
from any type of tyranny from government. However, nowhere in the Constitution does it
emphasize separation between church and state. This creates problems between the American
government and the American people. There are religious and non-religious Americans. When
government creates policies that make people feel violated then the government should
reconstruct policies to accommodate the American people.
In the case of Holt, all Holt wanted was to be able to grow a beard so he may follow his
religious beliefs (Schultz, 2014). He understood that the policy only allows half of an inch long
and he requested to grow only that length (Schultz, 2014). However, he was denied his right to
grow his beard (Schultz, 2014). The Arkansas Department of Corrections denied his request
because of fear he could hide certain objects in the beard (Schultz, 2014). Holt had gone through
different court appeals and finally after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in his favor, he was able to
grow his beard. The point in this case shows that government policies are made in certain ways
to restrain certain freedoms at the government’s discretion. Even though Holt finally won, the
fact that he had to sue the state of Arkansas proved that government involvement stresses the
importance of the infringement on American’s lives.
The days of the 1940s have slowly evolved from the 1943 Minersville case to the 2014
Holt case. The people of America have shown trends of being extremely religious and now they
show less interest in having religion. Either way, Americans still have the First Amendment.
This amendment shows that no matter if an American is for religion or against religion, Congress
shall make no law hindering or advancing religion upon the American people (U.S. Constitution,
1791).

11. Adams-Wiley 11