If any of these prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the 1985 case "Wallace v. Jaffree" the Supreme Court further stated that the effect prong and the entanglement prong don't need to be examined, if the law in question doesn't have an obvious secular purpose. In "Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos" (1987) the Supreme Court noted that the purpose prongs requirement of a secular legislative purpose doesn't mean that the law's purpose must be unrelated to religion, because this would amount to a requirement, in the words of "Zorach v. Clauson", 343 U. S. 306 (1952), at 314, "that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups." Instead "Lemon's 'purpose' requirement aims at preventing the relevant governmental decisionmaker – here, Congress – from abandoning neutrality and acting with the intent of promoting a particular point of view in religious matters." As observed by the Supreme Court in "McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union" (2005): "When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government’s ostensible object is to take sides."