Appellant
Vashti McCollum
Appellee
Board of Education of School District No. 71, Champaign County, Illinois
Appellant's Claim
That a policy of permitting limited religious instruction in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Walter F. Dodd
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Owen Rall and John L. Franklin
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), Harold Burton, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Frank Murphy, Wiley Blount Rutledge, Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
Stanley Forman Reed
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
8 March 1948
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the state could not permit religious instructionto take place in public school classrooms.
Significance
McCollum was one of the first Supreme Court decisions to address issues raised by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In it, the Courtaffirmed that the wall separating church and state is both high and impregnable.
The Illinois school board provided space in its buildings for religious instruction to be given by teachers who were paid by various private religious groups, but subject to school board approval. Students could choose not to participate in the program, which offered Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish instruction for 30 to 45 minutes every week during regular school hours. Non participating students went elsewhere in the school buildings; participating studentswere required to attend.
Vashti McCollum, a resident and taxpayer in Champaign, Illinois, and a parentwhose child was registered in the Champaign public schools, brought an action against the school board in state court. McCollum's action was in fact brought on her behalf by the state of Illinois, which is the import of the case title, Illinois ex. rel McCollum. Citing both the First and the Fourteenth Amendments, McCollum requested that the board be ordered to adopt and enforce regulations prohibiting religious instruction in her public school district. The district court found that the school board's program violated neither of the constitutional provisions McCollum invoked and denied her petition for mandamus--a request that a governmental entity be ordered to perform some necessary duty. When the state supreme court upheld this decision, McCollum appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wall Between Church and State Remains Intact
Justice Black, writing for the eight-member Court majority, cited an opinionhe had written in another Establishment Clause case, Everson v. Board of Education, just the year before:
The four justices who had dissented in Everson--Frankfurter, Jackson,Rutledge, and Burton--concurred here. Whereas in the earlier case a one-votemajority had upheld a state statute authorizing reimbursement of transportation costs to and from schools, including parochial schools, here the Court stood solidly behind a rejection of state support for religion. In Everson Black had emphasized state neutrality towards religion, but in McCollum the two clearly were too close for comfort:
However, Justice Frankfurter's concurrence also noted that in 1948 nearly twomillion students took part in "released time" activities such as the programfor religious studies in Champaign, Illinois. In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), the Supreme Court would uphold a New York City practice of releasing students from public school so that they could receive instruction at religiouscenters of their own choosing. The Court was moving away from an absolute prohibition of any state support for religion and towards the "excessive entanglement" test for impermissible government involvement with religion that would be articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
Related Cases
Vashti McCollum
Appellee
Board of Education of School District No. 71, Champaign County, Illinois
Appellant's Claim
That a policy of permitting limited religious instruction in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Walter F. Dodd
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Owen Rall and John L. Franklin
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), Harold Burton, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Frank Murphy, Wiley Blount Rutledge, Fred Moore Vinson
Justices Dissenting
Stanley Forman Reed
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
8 March 1948
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the state could not permit religious instructionto take place in public school classrooms.
Significance
McCollum was one of the first Supreme Court decisions to address issues raised by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In it, the Courtaffirmed that the wall separating church and state is both high and impregnable.
The Illinois school board provided space in its buildings for religious instruction to be given by teachers who were paid by various private religious groups, but subject to school board approval. Students could choose not to participate in the program, which offered Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish instruction for 30 to 45 minutes every week during regular school hours. Non participating students went elsewhere in the school buildings; participating studentswere required to attend.
Vashti McCollum, a resident and taxpayer in Champaign, Illinois, and a parentwhose child was registered in the Champaign public schools, brought an action against the school board in state court. McCollum's action was in fact brought on her behalf by the state of Illinois, which is the import of the case title, Illinois ex. rel McCollum. Citing both the First and the Fourteenth Amendments, McCollum requested that the board be ordered to adopt and enforce regulations prohibiting religious instruction in her public school district. The district court found that the school board's program violated neither of the constitutional provisions McCollum invoked and denied her petition for mandamus--a request that a governmental entity be ordered to perform some necessary duty. When the state supreme court upheld this decision, McCollum appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wall Between Church and State Remains Intact
Justice Black, writing for the eight-member Court majority, cited an opinionhe had written in another Establishment Clause case, Everson v. Board of Education, just the year before:
[T]he First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere. Or, as we said in the Everson case, the First Amendment has erected a wall between Church and State which must be kept high and impregnable.
The four justices who had dissented in Everson--Frankfurter, Jackson,Rutledge, and Burton--concurred here. Whereas in the earlier case a one-votemajority had upheld a state statute authorizing reimbursement of transportation costs to and from schools, including parochial schools, here the Court stood solidly behind a rejection of state support for religion. In Everson Black had emphasized state neutrality towards religion, but in McCollum the two clearly were too close for comfort:
Here not only arethe state's tax-supported public school buildings used for the disseminationof religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluableaid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the state's compulsory public school machinery. This is not separationof Church and State.The Everson dissenters signed on toa concurring opinion, written by Justice Frankfurter, which emphasized an historical trend away from mixing religious and sectarian instruction in publicschools.
However, Justice Frankfurter's concurrence also noted that in 1948 nearly twomillion students took part in "released time" activities such as the programfor religious studies in Champaign, Illinois. In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), the Supreme Court would uphold a New York City practice of releasing students from public school so that they could receive instruction at religiouscenters of their own choosing. The Court was moving away from an absolute prohibition of any state support for religion and towards the "excessive entanglement" test for impermissible government involvement with religion that would be articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
Related Cases
- Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940).
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
- Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
- School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 274 U.S. 203 (1963).
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
- Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
User Comments Add a comment…