Basic Information

The architect Cass Gilbert had grand ambitions for his design of a new home for the Supreme Court--what he called "the greatest tribunal in the world, one of the three great elements of our national government." Gilbert knew that the approach to the Court, as much as the structure itself, would define the experience of the building, but the site presented a challenge. Other exalted Washington edifices--the Capitol, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial--inspired awe with their processional approaches. But in 1928 Congress had designated for the Court a cramped and asymmetrical plot of land, wedged tightly between the Capitol and the Library of Congress. How could Gilbert convey to visitors the magnitude and importance of the judicial process taking place within the Court's walls?
The answer, he decided, was steps. Gilbert pushed back the wings of the building, so that the public face of the building would be a portico with a massive imposing stairway. Visitors would not have to walk a long distance to enter, but few would forget the experience of mounting those forty-four steps to the double row of eight massive columns supporting the roof. The walk up the stairs would be the central symbolic experience of the Supreme Court, a physical manifestation of the American march to justice. The stairs separated the Court from the everyday world--and especially from the earthly concerns of the politicians in the Capitol-- and announced that the justices would operate, literally, on a higher plane. (Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Anchor Books, 2008.)

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. Hialeah 1993

I chose to discuss this case because it is more local. As you may or may not know, Santeria is the practice of black magic which involves animal sacrifice and voodoo. The influence of the Caribbean attributes to the presence of this practice in South Florida. This case deals with the Free Exercise Clause which prohibits the government to deny the practice of a certain religion. The separation of Church and State guarantees this. The Supreme Court only gave the permissive result to the specific church, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, to practice these animal sacrifice rituals. All the ordinances agree with this decision. Not everyone may agree with these practices, however, you can't contest it because of the Free Exercise Clause.

Facts of the Case:
The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro-Caribbean-based religion of Santeria. Santeria used animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut and, except during healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten. Shortly after the announcement of the establishment of a Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida, the city council adopted several ordinances addressing religious sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities.

Question:
Did the city of Hialeah's ordinance, prohibiting ritual animal sacrifices, violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause?

Conclusion:
Yes. The Court held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The ordinances had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest. The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict strutiny.
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. LuisaFebruary 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM

    Well Nikki, I didn’t really quite get on what side of this issue you are on, whether you support the Supreme Court’s decision upon this case, or not? I do understand it is a very controversial case, because followers of such religions can argue that: according to the 1st Amendment they have the right to pursue any religion, and with it do any practices that correspond to their religion; therefore, those that practice Voodoo are entitled to sacrifice animals. On the other side, animal rights activists, PETA, will counteract by stating that these “sacrifices” go against animal rights, and that they should not be allowed. In my opinion I believe that legally the decision held by the Supreme Court was correct, according to what is stated in the Constitution, but morally speaking these sacrifices are simply inhuman.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)