Martin H. Droz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the Social Security program neither advances nor prohibits religion, does not excessively entangle the government with religion, and has a valid secular purpose
• noting the relevance of the strict scrutiny framework to the First Amendment inquiry
• collecting 6 The constitutional nature of Hansen’s § 1402(g) claims is “of no conse- quence under the Anti-Injunction Act.” Alexander, 416 U.S. at 759; see also Andersen v. United States, 298 F.3d 804, 809-10 (9th Cir. 2002). 5166 HANSEN v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY cases
• “[b]ecause the RFRA restored the test used to consider free exercise challenges before Smith, we rely on pre-Smith decisions under the Free Exercise Clause”
• compulsory participation in the social security system, where the plaintiff’s objection is based on religious grounds, is not unconstitutional
• “Thus, the Lemon test applies.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).