The Case of Zelman v Simmons-Harris and the Shifts in American Secularism
Keywords:Zelman v Simmons-Harris, America, Secularism
Through the lenses of the case of Zelman v Simmons-Harris(2002), this article discusses the American concept of secularism. Unlike the direct government aid to religious activities in various European and Turkish political systems, the American government supports religious instruction only indirectly. Even though the government programs providing financial aid for religion has always faced rigorous examination in the Supreme Court, the current case law of the Court opens the door for a significant amount of unspecified cash flow to religious schools. Thanks to this constitutional pass, it is possible for future politics and legislative endeavors to reshape the contours of state-religion relations in the field of education. Thus, the distinct feature of American secularism based on separation between church and state might bend further.
• Bell, Ashley M. (2001). God Save this Honorable Court: How Current Establishment Jurisprudence can be Reconciled with the Secularization of the Historical Religious Expression”. American University Law Review 50(1), 1273-1320.
• Berg, Thomas and Laycock, Douglas. (2004). The Mistakes in Locke v Davey and Future of State Payments for Services Provided by Religious Institutions. Tulsa Law Review 40 (1), 226-254.
• Breyer, Hugh J. (1994). Laycock's Substantive Neutrality and Nuechterlein's Free Exercise Test: Implications of Their Convergence for the Religion Clauses. Journal of Law and Religion 10(1), 467-490.
• Bovee and et al. (1987) Case Comment: Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind: The Establishment Clause and Financial Aid to Students for Religious Education at Private Institution. Journal of College and University Law, 13(4), 397-406
• Crisafulli, Sara J. (2003). Zelman v Simmon-Harris: Is the Supreme Court’s Latest Word on School Voucher Programs Rally the Last Words?. Fordham Law Review,71, 2227-2281.
• Crooker, Virginia Chase. (2005). “Zelman v. Simmons-Harris: The Establishment Clause and the Fight for School Vouchers”. Arkansas Law Review, 58, 395- 424
• Dreisbach, Daniel. (2002). Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State. New York: New York University Press.
• Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. (1998). The Choices Justices Make, C. Quarterly,
• Fowler, James H. and Jeon, Sangick. (2008). The Authority of the Supreme Court Precedent. Social Networks, 3(1), 16-30.
• Greenewalt, Kent. (2005). History as Ideology: Philipp Hamburger’s Separation of Church and State. California Law Review, 93(1), 367-396.
• Green, Steven K. (2003). The Illusionary Aspect of Private Choice for Constitutional Analysis. Willamette Law Review, 38(1), 548-578.
• Greenawalt, Kent. (2008). Religion and the Constitution. New Jersey: Princeton University Press
• Griffin, Leslie C. (2010). Law and Religion. New York: Aspen Publishers.
• Hamburger, Philipp (2002). Separation of Church and State. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
• Hansford, Thomas, and Spriggs, James. (2006). The Politics of Precedent on the US. Supreme Court. New Jersey: Princeton U. Press.
• Kritzer, Herbert M. and Richards, Mark J. (2003). Jurisprudential Regimes and Supreme Court Decision Making: The Lemon Regime and the Establishment Clause Cases. Law and Society Review 37(4), 827-840.
• Laycock, Douglas (1990). Formal, Substantive, and Disaggregated Neutrality Toward Religion. DePaul Law Review, 30(1), 993-1018.
• Marietta, Morgan. (2014). A Citizen’s Guide to Constitution and the Supreme Court. New York: Routledge.
• Monsma, Stephen V (2000). Substantive Neutrality as a Basis for Free Exercise-No Establishment Common Ground. Journal of Church and State, 42(1), 13-35.
• Munoz, Vincent Philip. (2003). James Madison’s Principle of Religious Liberty. American Political Science Review, 97(1), 17-32
• Segal, A Jeffrey and Spaeth, Harold J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Peterson and et al. “An Evaluation of Cleveland Voucher Program after Two Years”. Program on Education Policy and Governance. Accessed via https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED451260.
• Ravitch, Frank S. (2004). A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Neutrality: Broad Principles, Formalism, and the Establishment Clause. Georgia Law Review, 38(2), 489-573.
• Ravitch, Frank S. (2004). The Supreme Court’s Rhetorical Hostility: What is Hostile to Religion Under the Establishment Clause?. BYU Law Review 2004, 3, 1030-1047.
• Underkuffler, Laura (2000). Vouchers and Beyond: The Individual as Causative Agent in the Establishment Jurisprudence. Indiana Law Journal 75(1), 167-190.
• Everson v Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
• Board of Education v Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968)
• Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
• Meek v Pittenger, 421 U.S. 249 (1975)
• Wolman v Walter, 433 U.S. 229 (1977)
• Muller v Allen, 483 U.S. 388 (1983)
• Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
• Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985)
• School District of Grand Rapids v Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985).
• Witters v Washington Department Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481, (1986)
• Zobrest b Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993)
• Agostini v. Felton of 1997, 521 U.S. 203 (1997).
• Mitchell v Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000).
• Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).
Locke v Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004)
• Trinity Lutheran Church of Colombia v Carol S. Comer, Director, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 582 U.S. (2017)
• 72 F.Supp.2d 834 (1999)
• Sixth Circuit, Simmons-Harris v Zelman, No: 00-3055/3060/3063.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 ISPEC International Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.