The separation of church and state is a vital principle in the U.S. government, but as debates about hot-button issues like abortion and same-sex marriage indicate, lawmakers can’t always put their personal religious beliefs entirely aside while working. On the Supreme Court of the United States, especially, where so much of the work involves interpretation, full objectivity can be difficult to grasp.
Prior to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year, the court had six Catholics: Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Scalia, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas. The remaining three justices — Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagen — are Jewish.
Though political ideologies are tied in part to one’s religious beliefs, the SCOTUS justices don’t necessarily vote in religious blocs. Sotomayor, for example, is typically a progressive voice on the court, though she shares her Catholicism with some of the most conservative justices on the bench.
President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy left by Scalia — Merrick Garland — is Jewish (a faith traditionally associated with being left-leaning), but he’s been praised by conservatives in the past.
Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, a watchdog group that opposes activist judges, told Religion News Service the religion of justices hasn’t mattered much in the past and likely won’t in the future, either.
“It’s true that the Jewish members of the court right now are liberal and I am sure that has some correlation to the fact that most Jewish Americans are liberal, but it’s certainly not determinative, much like race,” he said. “Most African-Americans are liberal, but that doesn’t make Justice (Clarence) Thomas any less conservative.”
Still, the court plays a major role in policing the separation of church and state and the frequent clashes among religions and the non-religious. Here are some of the most recent landmark religion cases the court has decided, according to the Bill of Rights Institute:
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010)
The court ruled that a student organization at a public university was not free to limit its members to those who shared their belief system if that resulted in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation (2007)
After the Bush Administration created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for the purpose of allowing religious charity organizations to gain federal funding, the Court ruled that taxpayers cannot bring Establishment Clause challenges against programs funded by the executive office.
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal (2006)
The courts ruled unanimously in favor of a small religious group who had argued that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 required that they be free to use hoasca — an illegal drug under the Controlled Substances Act — for religious purposes. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Court had to review individual religious freedom claims and grant exceptions to generally applicable laws.
Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)
A federal law prohibiting government from burdening prisoners’ religious exercise did not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)
Two large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses lacked a secular purpose and were not religiously neutral and therefore violated the Establishment Clause.
