- Read and discuss the founding documents related to free exercise of religion.
- Examine and analyze primary source documents related to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2013)
- Evaluate, based on the documents examined, the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2013)
- Write a response paper addressing the central question of the case.
- Handout A: Case Background and Central Question
- Handout B: Document Analysis Continuum
- Documents for Lesson:
- First Amendment
- Madison’s On Property
- Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2013), Majority Opinion
- Other Court decisions referenced in opinion: Sherbert (1963), Yoder (1972)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2013), Dissenting Opinion
- Affordable Care Act (ACA) text and HHS Guidelines
- Political cartoons
- Post or project the Central Question on the board so that it is visible as students arrive in the classroom.
- Central Question: Do the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Act of 1993 prohibit an executive agency from requiring a family who owns a corporation to provide full insurance coverage for services that violate their religious beliefs?
- As students arrive, point out the question and instruct them to write a single-sentence response to the question. Indicate one corner of the classroom as “Absolutely Yes” and the opposite corner as “Absolutely No.” Instruct students to stand and walk to a point in the classroom that indicates their response to the question. They may choose “Absolute Yes”, “Absolute No”, or any point between the two that indicates “where they stand” on the question.
Once students have walked to their positions, ask individual students to explain why they “took the stand” that they did. Announce that they will be examining some founding documents and a Supreme Court case and, armed with further information, be revisiting that question. Tell students that their job is to be prepared to refer to those documents in order to independently write a paper addressing the central question of that Supreme Court case.
- Review the Case Background. Discuss each part of it, asking probing questions to check students’ understanding and to ensure that they understand its central ideas before reading and analyzing the documents for this lesson.
- Distribute copies of Documents A and B (First Amendment and Madison’s On Property) to each student. Before reading each document, look together at the related critical questions for each. Then, read each document and respond, in group discussion, to the critical questions.
- Assign students to groups of three or four. Distribute copies of Document C (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) to each student. Have them to read it with their partners, using the related Critical Questions to guide their analysis, and then to formulate a written response to each question.
- Distribute copies of Documents D – H to each student to examine independently, writing their answers to the questions.
- Provide a copy of Handout A: Document Analysis Continuum graphic organizer (on the following page) to each student. Divide the class into five groups and assign each group to discuss their individual analysis of documents as follows: Group 1: Document D; Group 2: Document E; Group 3: Document F; Group 4: Document G; Group 5: Document H. Each group should designate a spokesperson. Have each group draft a summary of their assigned document, discuss their responses to the questions, and indicate where their assigned document belongs on the continuum.
- Next, have the spokesperson from each group come to the large, projected image of Handout A, share the group’s responses to the questions, and mark where they placed the document on the continuum. After all of the groups have presented, invite other students to ask clarifying questions, offer alternative responses, or challenge other answers. Be prepared to offer your own clarifying questions to ensure that students are synthesizing their understanding of Documents A – C into their analysis of Documents D – H.
- Ask students the same question asked at the start of class, indicating the same “Absolute Yes” and “Absolute No” corners, as well as the space in between. Invite students whose answers shifted to explain what evidence caused them to alter their responses to the question.
- Have students write a response paper that addresses the Central Question:
- Do the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Act of 1993 prohibit an executive agency from requiring a family who owns a corporation to provide full insurance coverage for services that violate their religious beliefs?
- Have students work individually, or in pairs or groups of three, to take on the role of James Madison and use Word, PowerPoint, or Prezi to create an imitation Twitter Chat between Madison and the writers of Documents C – G. What might Madison say in response to the key ideas presented in each of those documents?
- If time allows, students should present their Twitter Chat slideshows in class. Consider offering bonus points to presentations that refer to thinkers who influenced the United States founders, or that include hashtags that distill key ideas in relevant constitutional principles.
Wisconsin v. Yoder | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Religious liberty is one of the foundational principles of American society, but how should it be balanced with government interests in an educated citizenry? Our second Homework Help video of the semester is on the landmark case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, and how the Supreme Court dealt with this important question.
Reading Wisconsin v. Yoder Decision Excerpts | A Primary Source Close Read w/ BRI
Who wins when religious liberty clashes with a government mandate? This was the question when members of the Amish community fought against a perceived infraction on their religious liberty in Wisconsin in 1971. In this Primary Close Read video, Kirk Higgins and Tony Williams explore a fascinating Supreme Court case: Wisconsin v. Yoder. Were members of the Amish community wrong in wanting to stop their children’s participation in public schools past the eighth grade? Was the government overreaching in trying to force parents to violate their religious conscience?