--When intervening in religious practices to protect people have to ask if it is the least intrusive means to complete what needs to be done--Suppose you live in Hialeah and there used to be a lot of dogs and cats around the streets but then there are a lot of dead animals around the neighborhoodyou could reasonably argue that there is a compelling interest that its unsanitary and not healthy to have dead animals everywherethe defense could arguethere’s not an absolute right to kill animals and keep them around the neighborhoodIs it the least intrusive meansAn outright prohibition of killing animals for sacrifice is not the least intrusive wayThere can be a law about where and how to dispose of the sacrifices--Abington Township v. Schemppa government agent in position of authority cannot imply that one must agree with them in order to succeed in whatever position they haveCannot pressure others to agree with religious beliefs or cannot force religious practices on people in government agenciesThe test:The primary purposeThe objective of the law before it was lawThe primary effectThe effect after the law became lawLemon TestDid the government action have a secular purposeThe supporters of the law have to justify without any religious referralsCan the state justify it’s action without referring to religion, if the only justification is to support or discourage a religion than it fails this prong of the testDoes the primary effect of the government action either advance or inhibit religion?If the law promotes religion or discourages it then it fails the testDoes the government action constitute excessive government entanglement with religion?Has the government formed a partnership with the religious organizationGood News Club v. Milford Central SchoolThe free speech clause used to decide this caseSchool board was violating the free speech rights of the churchFreeman v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor VehiclesNeeds to pass strict scrutiny test of compelling interest testReligious freedom act- any law that denies religious freedom is unconstitutional unless it passes the strict scrutiny test of the compelling interest actExercise of religion as defined in FRFRAAn act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system or religious beliefPg 1881. Freedom of speech, equal protection, establishment clause7. There’s no government action8. There’s no government action9. No reference to religion but13. If they are owned then it’s illegal to kill them, but animals don’t have any constitutional rights17.Chapter 5 The First Amendment 03/31/2014--When intervening in religious practices to protect people have to ask if it is the least intrusive means to complete what needs to be done--Suppose you live in Hialeah and there used to be a lot of dogs and cats around the streets but then there are a lot of dead animals around the neighborhood - you could reasonably argue that there is a compelling interest that its unsanitary and not healthy to have dead animals everywhere - the defense could argue o there’s not an absolute right to kill animals and keep them around the neighborhood o Is it the least intrusive means o An outright prohibition of killing animals for sacrifice is not theleast intrusive way o There can be a law about where and how to dispose of the sacrifices --Abington Township v. Schempp - a government agent in position of authority cannot imply that one must agree with them in order to succeed in whatever position they have - Cannot pressure others to agree with religious beliefs or cannot force religious practices on people in government agencies - The test: o The primary purpose  The objective of the law before it was law o The primary effect  The effect after the law became law o Lemon Test  Did the government action have a secular purpose  The supporters of the law have to justify without any religious referrals  Can the state justify it’s action without referring toreligion, if the only justification is to support or discourage a religion than it fails this prong of the test o Does the primary effect of the government action either advance or inhibit religion? If the law promotes religion or discourages it then it failsthe test o Does the government action constitute excessive governmententanglement with religion? Has the government formed a partnership with the religious organization Good News Club v. Milford Central School - The free speech clause used to decide this case - School board was violating the free speech rights of the church Freeman v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles - Needs to pass strict scrutiny test of compelling interest test - Religious freedom act- any law that denies religious freedom is unconstitutional unless it passes the strict scrutiny test of the compelling interest act Exercise of religion as defined in FRFRA - An act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or centralto a larger system or religious belief Pg 188 - 1. Freedom of speech, equal protection, establishment clause - 7. There’s no government action - 8. There’s no government action - 9. No reference to religion but - 13. If they are owned then it’s illegal to kill them, but animals don’t have any constitutional rights -