The establishment clause is a defense of the city, the state actor in this case. Basically, if the city allows the religious expression, it violates Establishment clause by promoting religion. If it prohibits religious speech, it violates freedom of speech as a Content based violation. It also restricts religious belief and so violates Free Exercise Clause. The plaintiffs win based on Free Speech as the regulation is content-based and the strict scrutiny standard test is applied and the city's defense of establishment clause does not meet the heightened scrutiny.
Chat with our AI personalities
Two clauses of the first amendment concern the relationship of government to religion. There is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The clauses were intended to serve common values. The establishment clause purpose was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially support a national religion. The Supreme Court interpretation of the establishment clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of education. Voting 5 to 4 the court upheld a state law that reimburses parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools. If the state had reimbursed the parochial schools for the cost of transportation it would violate the establishment clause. Another case was a school sponsored prayer starting the school day in New York schools violated the establishment clause.
McCulloch v. Maryland.An example of national supremacy clause can be seen in the case McCulloch v. Maryland.
The 15th amendment
Question: Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church-related educational institutions"?Conclusion: Yes.See below link for discussion:
The purpose of "primary examination" is to afford the plaintiff or the state an opportunity to develop its case-in-chief. This is an outgrowth of the Amendment VI Confrontation Clause.