Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) created a 3-part test for church-state entanglement

The Supreme Court decided that a public school coach's postgame prayers were protected speech

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of a high school football coach who had been suspended for kneeling in prayer at midfield after games. The decision shifted away from the Lemon test and toward a more expansive view of religious freedom in the Establishment Clause.

The words 'separation of church and state' are not found in the Constitution

Responding to Connecticut Baptists concerned about religious liberty, Jefferson described the First Amendment as building "a wall of separation between church and state." The Supreme Court later cited the letter as an authoritative guide to the Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court's first major free-speech ruling rested on a legal standard that was later overturned

In Schenck v. United States (1919), the court introduced the "clear and present danger" test—permitting the government to restrict speech that posed an immediate threat to public safety. Although the doctrine was later replaced, the ruling upheld the conviction of a man who had distributed anti-draft pamphlets.

Reynolds v. United States (1878) established that religious belief is not a defense for a crime

In the first major Supreme Court case on the free exercise clause, the court ruled that the government cannot regulate religious belief, but it can regulate religious practice if it violates the law. The case arose from a Mormon man convicted of polygamy who argued his faith required it.

Hear how the 2 religious clauses in the First Amendment have been tested and evolved over time

This podcast examines the evolution of the free exercise and establishment clauses, tracing their development from federal restrictions to state and local laws. Discover the believers who challenged the limits of religious freedom throughout American history.

Read the language in the Constitution that protects religious freedom in the US

The First Amendment's religion clauses include two provisions: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. These two parts prevent the government from endorsing any specific religion and from interfering with the free practice of religion.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 restricted the government's ability to limit religious practice

Congress enacted RFRA in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith. The law requires the government to use the least restrictive means before substantially burdening an individual's religious exercise.

Brandenburg v. Ohio set the modern standard for when speech can be punished as incitement

A Ku Klux Klan leader's conviction for a threatening speech prompted the Supreme Court in 1969 to rule that speech is punishable as incitement only if it is directed at—and likely to produce—imminent lawless action.

The separation of powers is a pivotal component of the US Constitution

Explore how the three branches interact through the Supreme Court case of US v. Alvarez. The Supreme Court first struck down a law, then Congress and the president later revised it—illustrating how judicial review can reshape legislation and executive action.

Most Americans support the separation of church and state

A 2021 Pew survey found that 55% of Americans strongly or moderately support the separation of church and state, while 14% favor integrating religion more into government.

Employment Division v. Smith (1990) reaffirmed the Reynolds decision that the law applies to everyone, regardless of faith

The Supreme Court ruled that the government does not have to grant religious exemptions from laws that apply to everyone. The case involved Native American church members fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony.

Maryland required officeholders to declare a belief in God until 1961

In Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Maryland requirement that officeholders declare belief in God violated the First and 14th Amendments. The decision struck down religious tests for public office across all states.

France has a strict and explicit separation of church and state

France's principle of laïcité—strict separation of church and state—prohibits religious expression in public institutions, including the wearing of religious clothing and symbols in public schools and by government employees.

A 1922 Oregon initiative that sought to ban private education inadvertently strengthened parents' ability to pursue options outside the public school system, building the legal case for homeschooling.

Title IX compliance relies on a three-part test

In 1979, the Office for Civil Rights issued Title IX’s three-part test to evaluate whether schools offer nondiscriminatory athletic opportunities: proportionate participation, program expansion, or meeting women’s interests. The guidelines offer flexibility without quotas and include specific factors for each item.

The First Amendment established religious freedom as a constitutional right—a safeguard no other nation had before

Europe had limited religious tolerance for centuries, but always as a privilege granted by rulers who could revoke it. The First Amendment in the United States was unique for the time: It banned the government from interfering with religion, making religious freedom a permanent constitutional limit on state power.

Snyder v. Phelps found that the First Amendment protects speech, even if it is deeply hurtful or inflammatory

When some members of the Westboro Baptist Church, carrying inflammatory signs, picketed the funeral of a fallen Marine, his father sued but lost. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the protest addressed matters of public concern and was protected by the First Amendment.

A 1954 Supreme Court ruling helped quiz shows avoid regulation

When the Federal Communications Committee attempted to rein in giveaway shows, the Supreme Court ruled that quiz shows were not a form of gambling because contestants did not have to risk anything to participate. Some believe that the ruling prevented proper oversight of the industry as it became more popular.

In the US, any court can rule on constitutionality—unlike in most other countries

In the American system, known as diffuse judicial review, federal and state courts at every level may assess whether laws comply with the Constitution, and their decisions are ultimately reviewable by the Supreme Court. Many other democracies, by contrast, reserve constitutional review to specialized constitutional courts.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) extended religious exemptions to family-owned corporations

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that family-owned companies could invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to refuse contraception coverage required under the Affordable Care Act. It was the first time the court recognized that for-profit corporations could hold religious beliefs.

Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) broadened parents' rights regarding what their children learn in public schools

The case, brought by parents in Maryland, focused on religious objections to books with same-sex and transgender characters in elementary classrooms. The court ruled that the district's denial of parents' opt-out requests violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

'Pastafarians' have used their pasta-strainer-wearing faith to test the legal limits of what counts as religion

Founded in 2005 to mock the teaching of creationism in public schools, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has led to real First Amendment cases—over driver's license photos, courthouse statues, and prison rights. Courts have generally ruled it as satire rather than religion.

Madison argued that the government had no authority to regulate faith

James Madison viewed religion as a matter of individual conscience beyond the reach of the state, opposing government funding of churches and advancing a model of religious liberty based on noninterference rather than official toleration.

Citizens United extended First Amendment protections to corporate political spending

The Supreme Court's 2010 decision struck down limits on independent political expenditures by corporations and other organizations, ruling that such spending is protected speech—a decision that was deeply contested and reshaped campaign finance law.

Not all speech in the United States is protected

This page explains the categories of speech—including defamation, incitement, true threats, fraud, and obscenity—the Supreme Court has placed outside First Amendment protection and how courts determine which standard to apply when speech is challenged.

Explore the nearly 1,000 laws, regulations, and provisions the court has held unconstitutional since Marbury v. Madison

Over more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has struck down nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local measures—exercising its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution and shaping civil rights, the separation of powers, and the scope of government authority.

Tinker v. Des Moines affirmed that students maintain the right to free speech at school

In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that two Iowa teenagers had the right to wear black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War, establishing that students retain First Amendment protections in public schools.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, which directly influenced the US Constitution

Drafted by Jefferson, the statute guaranteed freedom of worship to people of all faiths. Jefferson considered it one of his greatest achievements, and it served as the direct model for the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Read the majority opinion that established judicial review

In his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a written constitution is "paramount law" and that courts must refuse to enforce statutes that conflict with it. He declared that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

In 1976, segregation was outlawed in private schools

Over two decades after Brown v. Board of Education, Runyon v. McCrary banned the segregation academies, forcing them to admit non-white students or shut down.

Courts referee federalism disputes between Congress and the states

Modern federalism is primarily worked out through litigation. The Supreme Court decides disputes in written opinions that explain when federal law preempts state authority, how far Congress's powers extend, and when states may resist.

The Supreme Court blocked states from setting term limits for Congress

In US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court struck down state laws that tried to impose term limits on their congressional delegations. The court ruled such restrictions unconstitutional unless added through a federal amendment.

The commerce clause gives the federal government authority to regulate interstate economic activity

This short constitutional provision has allowed Congress to regulate everything from wheat production to racial segregation, greatly expanding federal power by linking national authority to interstate economic activity.

A single 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, gave courts the power to strike down acts of Congress.

Gibbons v. Ogden expanded federal power over interstate commerce

In 1824, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a New York steamboat monopoly, ruling that navigation between states constitutes interstate commerce. Chief Justice John Marshall held that Congress has authority over such commerce and that conflicting state laws are void under the supremacy clause.

A 1972 Supreme Court decision about Amish children and education helped pave the way for homeschooling in the US.

The First Amendment protects 5 distinct freedoms

Most Americans cite the amendment on free speech, but the First Amendment also protects religion, the press, peaceful assembly, and the right to petition the government—five separate guarantees in a single sentence.

The first test of America's war powers came just a decade after the Constitution was ratified

During the undeclared Quasi-War with France in 1800, the Supreme Court ruled in Bas v. Tingy that Congress had authorized a valid "imperfect war" through statutes alone, without a formal declaration, establishing that there is a legal spectrum between peace and declared war.

A court designed to be the least powerful branch of government became one of the most influential institutions in America.

The supremacy clause establishes federal law as the highest authority

The supremacy clause states that the United States Constitution and federal laws enacted under it supersede conflicting state laws, ensuring national authority prevails when federal and state governments disagree.

Take a deep dive into the constitutional foundations of judicial review

In this episode of "This Constitution," the hosts take a law-focused approach to judicial review—examining its roots in Article III and the supremacy clause, its development through Marbury v. Madison, and the ongoing constitutional debates about whether the court's power strengthens or strains American democracy.

Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

The 1803 ruling empowered courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, permanently expanding the Supreme Court's authority and cementing its role as a coequal branch. This video explains the case and its lasting impact.

An 1873 Supreme Court case about slaughterhouses weakened parts of the 14th Amendment

In 1873, the Supreme Court's Slaughterhouse Cases ruled that the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause protected only federal—not state—citizenship rights, greatly limiting the amendment's power to safeguard enslaved people from state discrimination.

John Marshall advanced federal supremacy and judicial review

Marshall's jurisprudence emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, enforceable by an independent judiciary. Through his court's decisions, he affirmed judicial review, broad implied powers for Congress, and federal authority to override conflicting state laws.

The Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag is protected speech

In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the court held, 5-4, that flag burning is a form of symbolic political expression protected by the First Amendment—one of the most controversial free-speech rulings in American history.

The Supreme Court curbed the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions in 2022

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the EPA exceeded its authority by requiring industrywide carbon cuts. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion invoked the "major questions" doctrine, which limits the ability of federal agencies to act without explicit congressional approval.

Germany's Constitutional Court can review laws without waiting for a specific case

The German court follows a model of "abstract judicial review"—meaning it can assess the constitutionality of legislation in the abstract, rather than only in concrete disputes. Its binding decisions apply to all German courts.

The Supreme Court has greatly expanded executive power in recent years

In Trump v. United States, the court ruled that a former president enjoys absolute immunity for "official acts" in his constitutional core powers. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the court limited federal courts' ability to block executive enforcement through nationwide injunctions—decisions that shifted power toward the executive branch.

McCulloch v. Maryland upheld implied powers and blocked states from taxing the federal government

In 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland confirmed that Congress may use implied powers under the necessary and proper clause and ruled that states cannot tax federal institutions, reaffirming the supremacy of the federal government within its constitutionally delegated powers.

Watch 2 Supreme Court justices debate how the Constitution should be interpreted

In a 2009 conversation, former Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer lay out competing approaches to constitutional interpretation: Scalia's textualist, strict constructionism versus Breyer's evolutionary view of the Constitution in practice.