In order to eliminate inconsistent results and promote predictability in litigation, a more uniform test should be developed and applied in Establishment Clause cases. Part I of this Comment will delineate the inherent problems with the two main tests currently utilized by the Supreme Court in Establishment Clause cases: the Lemon test and the endorsement test. Part II will further highlight the flaws of the Lemon and endorsement tests by examining their application to "holiday display" cases and the recent "Ten Commandments" cases. Part III will argue that applying a modified coercion test is the best means for achieving the most consistent results, even though it too has its limitation. Part IV will compare the practical application of the modified coercion test to the holiday display cases, the recent Ten Commandments cases, and the "Pledge of Allegiance" case. Part V will conclude that keeping Church and State separate does not require the complete bifurcation of all things religious from the rest of society, and that the modified coercion test is best suited for achieving the goal of appreciation of and tolerance for divergent points of view in the United States.
Lisa M. Kahle,
Making "Lemon-Aid" From the Supreme Court's Lemon: Why Current Establishment Clause Jurisprudence Should be Replaced by a Modified Coercion Test,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol42/iss1/18