United States v. Carolene Products

Q: What court decided Carolene Products?

United States v. Carolene Products was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1938.

Q: What legal issues are involved in Carolene Products?

United States v. Carolene Products involves the following religious liberty issues: Establishment Clause, Free Exercise.

In Footnote Four, Justice Harlan Stone established that laws discriminating against minorities, distorting the political process, or facially violating the Constitution are subject to strict scrutiny.

ReligiousLiberty.TV

February 26, 2026

0 min read

Year: 1938 Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Establishment Clause Free Exercise

Holding: In Footnote Four, Justice Harlan Stone established that laws discriminating against minorities, distorting the political process, or facially violating the Constitution are subject to strict scrutiny.

Uses AI to generate a structured summary. Takes ~10 seconds.

Official Documents

No official documents found yet.

Coverage on ReligiousLiberty.TV

📎 Document links found in our articles: 📄 opinion

Some Thoughts on the Implications of the Same-Sex Marriage Trial for Religious Minorities January 31, 2010

Cited as context

United States v. Carolene Products is a Establishment Clause case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1938. The court held that in Footnote Four, Justice Harlan Stone established that laws discriminating against minorities, distorting the political process, or facially violating the Constitution are subject to strict scrutiny.

1
Mahmoud v. Taylor606 U.S. 522 (2025)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children without state interference.
📄 Opinion available
2
Gilfillan v. City of Philadelphia637 F.2d 924 (1980)
2
Philadelphia violated the Establishment Clause by spending taxpayer funds to build a platform for a papal mass and…
📄 Opinion available
3
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.573 U.S. 682 (2014)
2
U.S. Supreme Court
Religious liberty protections under RFRA apply to closely held for-profit corporations.
📄 Opinion available
4
Hubersberger v. State2 CA-CV 2025-0188 (2026)
1
Religious motivation does not provide immunity from neutral criminal laws protecting private property; the state may prosecute trespassers…
📄 Opinion available
5
Roake v. BrumleyNo. 24-30 (2026)
1
Anti-Religion
A preliminary injunction blocking Louisiana's Ten Commandments display law is vacated because plaintiffs' legal challenge is not yet…
6
Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District(2026)
1
Pending
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is reconsidering whether Texas can mandate Ten Commandments displays in public…
7
Kimberly Ann Polk v. Montgomery County Board of Education
1
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a substitute teacher's lawsuit challenging a school district…
8
United States v. Don Lemon(2026)
1
U.S. District Court
Pending
The government indicted Don Lemon under the FACE Act for alleged coordination in disrupting religious worship, though judges…
9
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. DoeNo. 24-856 (2026)
1
U.S. Supreme Court
Pending
The Court must determine if U.S. corporations can be sued under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victim…
📄 Opinion available
10
Satanic Temple, Inc. v. RokitaNo. 23-3247 (2026)
1
The Satanic Temple lacks associational standing to challenge Indiana's abortion ban because it failed to identify specific injured…
📄 Opinion available