DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The Supreme Court case of Lyng v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources was a case that dealt with the issue of religious freedom. The case was brought by a Native American group, the Lyng family, who were members of the Native American Church. The Lyng family argued that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources had violated their religious freedom by prohibiting them from using a road on public land for religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Lyng family, finding that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources had violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court held that the government cannot prohibit religious practices unless it can show a compelling interest in doing so. The Court also found that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources had failed to show a compelling interest in prohibiting the Lyng family from using the road for religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court's decision in Lyng v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources was an important victory for religious freedom. The Court's decision reaffirmed the importance of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and made it clear that the government cannot prohibit religious practices unless it can show a compelling interest in doing so.

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES In the dissenting opinion of Lyng v. Michigan Department of Social Services, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was wrong because it failed to recognize a fundamental principle: Congress cannot authorize government action which violates the Constitution. He argued that in this case, Congress had authorized an executive branch agency to take land from private citizens without just compensation - something prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he noted that while there may be some public benefit associated with such actions (in this case preventing soil erosion), they must still comply with constitutional requirements and not simply rely on Congressional authorization as a means of circumventing them. In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that since no just compensation had been offered for taking away these individuals' property rights, their due process rights were violated and thus overturned his colleagues' ruling in favor of the state agency.