Jones v. Butz
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
374 F. Supp. 1284 (1974)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 1970 Congress passed the Humane Slaughter Act (the act) to ensure the humane slaughtering of animals for human consumption. Section 2 of the act provided the two slaughtering methods Congress deemed humane. The first method required that the animal be rendered unable to feel pain before being shackled and cut. The second method required that the animal be slaughtered in accordance with the Jewish faith. Section 5 of the act established a committee to execute the act’s provisions and required that a person familiar with the religious slaughtering of animals be appointed to the committee. Federal funds were spent to form the committee and execute the act. Section 6 provided that the act should not be construed as hindering religious freedom. A group of individuals and organizations seeking to encourage the humane treatment of animals and the separation of church and state (the entities) (plaintiffs) sued Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz and other government officials (collectively, the government) (defendants). The entities claimed that the act violated the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The government moved for summary judgment. The district court considered whether the entities had standing and the merits of their claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Palmieri, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 819,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
