Feminist Women's Health Center, Inc. v. Philibosian (1984)

First, article XVI, section 5, is so broad that state or local governments need not provide a financial benefit or tangible aid in order to violate the provision; they violate it by doing no more than lending their “prestige and power” to a “sectarian purpose.” Feminist Women’s Health Ctr., Inc. v. Philibosian, 157 Cal.App.3d 1076 , 203 Cal.Rptr. 918, 920-22, 927 (1984) (holding that, although state law authorized the district attorney to dispose of evidentiary fetal tissue …

Dist., 193 Cal. App. 3d 1012, 1016, 1024 (1987); Feminist Women’s Health Ctr., Inc. v. Philibosian, 157 Cal. App. 3d 1076, 1092 (1984).

Dist., 193 Cal. App. 3d 1012, 1016 (1987); Fem- inist Women’s Health Ctr., Inc. v. Philibosian, 157 Cal. App. 3d 1076, 1092 (1984).

Noting that California cases addressing establishment claims under the state constitution are few, the Okrand court observed that a state court "may 'also consult principles of federal cases as they seem compelling guides to uncharted state grounds.' " Id. (quoting Feminist Women's Health Ctr., Inc. v. Philibosian, 157 Cal.App.3d 1076 , 203 Cal.Rptr. 918, 923 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1752 , 84 L.Ed.2d 816 (1985)).

Noting that California cases addressing establishment claims under the state constitution are few, the Okrand court observed that a state court “may ‘also consult principles of federal cases as they seem compelling guides to uncharted state grounds.’ ” Id. (quoting Feminist Women’s Health Ctr., Inc. v. Philibosian, 157 Cal.App.3d 1076 , 203 Cal.Rptr. 918, 923 (1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1752 , 84 L.Ed.2d 816 (1985)).

The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The courts of California have suggested that article I, section 4 is broader than the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because of the additional language regarding "preference." See Fox v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.3d 792, 796 , 150 Cal.Rptr. 867, 869 , 587 P.2d 663, 665 (1978); Feminist Women's Health Center v. Philibosian, 157 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1092 , 203 Cal.Rptr. 918, 926 (1984), cert…

The California Constitution Article I, section 4 of the California Constitution provides that: “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed____ The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The courts of California have suggested that article I, section 4 is broader than the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because of the additional language regarding “preference.” See Fox v. City of Los…

(Feminist Women’s Health Center, Inc. v. Philobosian (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1086 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 918 ].) Given the particular governmental practice at issue here, we find our analysis under the establishment clause equally applicable to our determination that article I, section 4 has not been transgressed.

(Feminist Women’s Health Center, Inc. v. Philibosian (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1086-1087 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 918 ].) The enactment of the zoning change and the approval of the Project have a secular legislative purpose—to provide needed housing alternatives for senior citizens within the County.

I, ' 4 is broader than the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment simply because of the additional language regarding "preference." (See Sands v. Morongo Unified School District (1991) 53 Cal.3d 863 ; Fox v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.3d 792, 796 (1978); Feminist's Womens' Health Center v. Philibosian, 157 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1092 (1984).) Therefore, as indicated above, we see no basis for an argument that the advertising program would favor or prefer any individual relig…

I, § 4 is broader than the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because of the additional language regarding "preference." See Fox v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.3d 792, 796 (1978); Feminist's Womens' Health Center v. Philibosian, 157 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1092 (1984).10/ State constitutions can be more protective of certain rights than the federal constitution, but they cannot abridge other federal constitutional rights.

(Fox v. City of Los Angeles (1978) 22 Cal.3d 792, 796 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 587 P.2d 663 ] [illumination of a huge cross on the city hall was invalid preference]; Feminist Women’s Health Center, Inc. v. Philibosian (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1092 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 918 ], cert. den. (1985) 470 U.S. 1052 [ 84 L.Ed. 2d 816 , 105 S.Ct. 1752 ]; Christian Science v. City & County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1986) 784 F.2d 1010, 1015 .) In addition, the California Constitution expres…

(See Perumal v. Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist. *572 (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 64, 71-75 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 545 ].) Thus, when California courts examine the constitutionality of an action based on independent state grounds, they may “also consult principles of federal cases as they seem compelling guides to uncharted state grounds.” (Feminist Women's Health Center, Inc. v. Philibosian (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1086 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 918 ].) I With respect to the federal Cons…

(Mandel v. Hodges (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 596, 616 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 244 , 90 A.L.R.3d 728 ].)” (Feminist Women's Health Center, Inc. v. Philibosian (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1086 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 918 ].) However, there are few cases which discuss California’s constitutional prohibition against the interaction of state and church.

See, e.g., Weisman, — U.S. at —, 112 S.Ct. at 2655-56 (school’s selection of clergy to conduct graduation prayer created significant risk of divisiveness); see also Feminist Women’s Health Center v. Philibosian, 157 Cal.App.3d 1076 , 203 Cal.Rptr. 918, 926 (Cal.App.1984) (city’s giving of aborted fetuses to religious groups for mock burial would have aggravated “one of the most emotionally explosive issues in today’s firmament”), ce rt. denied, 470 U.S. 1052 , 105 S.Ct. 1752…