Petitioner
Steven L. Engel, et al.
Respondent
William J. Vitale, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That an official state prayer, even though it is nondenominational and voluntary, violates the First Amendment prohibition against state establishment ofreligion.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
William J. Butler
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Bertram B. Daiker
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C.Clark, William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, Earl Warren
Justices Dissenting
Potter Stewart (Felix Frankfurter and Byron R. White did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
25 June 1962
Decision
The Supreme Court declared that the creation of an official state prayer wasunconstitutional.
Significance
The Court stated for the first time that the Constitution forbids public schools from sponsoring religious activities.
The First Amendment clearly forbids government from enacting any law "respecting an establishment of religion." Prior to hearing Engel v. Vitale in1962, the Supreme Court had honored the formulation first put on this proscription by Thomas Jefferson that a "wall" separates church and state. But in earlier decisions such as Zorach v. Clauson (1952)--upholding a programpermitting public school students to receive religious training during school hours, but off school premises--the Court had permitted there to be some accommodation between public schools and religious activities. In Engel,the Court would make the barrier between the two almost unbreachably high.
In 1962, the school board of New Hyde Park, New York required that the following prayer be spoken aloud by each class every morning in front of a teacher:"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country." The nondenominational prayer had been composed and recommended by state officials. Parents of ten pupils in the school district responded by bringing suit in state court tostop the practice of mandated prayer in school. After the New York Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the trial court permitting public schools to use the prayer--so long as it was voluntary--the parents applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of this decision.
The parents were joined in their appeal by the American Civil Liberties Unionand a variety of other groups, many of them associated with the Jewish religion. For its part, the school board was joined by Porter R. Chandler, a lawyer associated with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. While the parents and their supporters claimed that the state-sponsored prayer clearly violated the First Amendment, the school board argued, to the contrary, that because no one was obliged to say the prayer, and because it was not geared towards any particular religion, it conformed to the policy of free exercise of religion promoted by the U.S. Constitution.
Justice Black For the Majority Declares Public School Prayer Wholly Unconstitutional
Writing for the Court, Justice Black stated unequivocally that any religiousactivity sponsored by public schools was inherently unconstitutional:
Always a First Amendment fundamentalist who took the words of the amendment at face value, Black cited no other cases to support this contention, insteadconcentrating on British and American history to illustrate the strength of the founding fathers' prohibition against any intermingling of church and state affairs. In contrast, the lone dissenter, Justice Stewart, maintained thatthe Establishment Clause merely forbids government establishment of a state religion. At the time, Stewart's opinion was disregarded. More recently, however, the Court's attitude towards prayer in the schools has softened, and in 1985, in his dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree William Rehnquist--who became chief justice the following year--adopted Stewart's line of argument.
Related Cases
Official State Prayer
Even though schoolchildren now have the right, under the First Amendment's free-exercise clause, to pray silently while at school, there are some who would like a state-sponsored school prayer. The proponents of school prayer believe that bringing religion into the classroom will make our society less violent. They also believe that not allowing prayer in school takes away the rights of those who wish to do so. They also argue that adopting a formal prayer does not force anyone to pray who does not want to.
Opponents to formal prayer argue that it is not a necessary activity and thatit would force atheists and children in minority religions to conform with the majority. They also counter that allowing prayer into schools would be a clear violation of the First Amendment religious guarantees.
Sources
Seelye, Katharine Q. "House Rejects Drive to Allow Formal Prayer in the Schools."New York Times, 5 June 1998.
Steven L. Engel, et al.
Respondent
William J. Vitale, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That an official state prayer, even though it is nondenominational and voluntary, violates the First Amendment prohibition against state establishment ofreligion.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
William J. Butler
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Bertram B. Daiker
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C.Clark, William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, Earl Warren
Justices Dissenting
Potter Stewart (Felix Frankfurter and Byron R. White did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
25 June 1962
Decision
The Supreme Court declared that the creation of an official state prayer wasunconstitutional.
Significance
The Court stated for the first time that the Constitution forbids public schools from sponsoring religious activities.
The First Amendment clearly forbids government from enacting any law "respecting an establishment of religion." Prior to hearing Engel v. Vitale in1962, the Supreme Court had honored the formulation first put on this proscription by Thomas Jefferson that a "wall" separates church and state. But in earlier decisions such as Zorach v. Clauson (1952)--upholding a programpermitting public school students to receive religious training during school hours, but off school premises--the Court had permitted there to be some accommodation between public schools and religious activities. In Engel,the Court would make the barrier between the two almost unbreachably high.
In 1962, the school board of New Hyde Park, New York required that the following prayer be spoken aloud by each class every morning in front of a teacher:"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country." The nondenominational prayer had been composed and recommended by state officials. Parents of ten pupils in the school district responded by bringing suit in state court tostop the practice of mandated prayer in school. After the New York Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the trial court permitting public schools to use the prayer--so long as it was voluntary--the parents applied to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of this decision.
The parents were joined in their appeal by the American Civil Liberties Unionand a variety of other groups, many of them associated with the Jewish religion. For its part, the school board was joined by Porter R. Chandler, a lawyer associated with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. While the parents and their supporters claimed that the state-sponsored prayer clearly violated the First Amendment, the school board argued, to the contrary, that because no one was obliged to say the prayer, and because it was not geared towards any particular religion, it conformed to the policy of free exercise of religion promoted by the U.S. Constitution.
Justice Black For the Majority Declares Public School Prayer Wholly Unconstitutional
Writing for the Court, Justice Black stated unequivocally that any religiousactivity sponsored by public schools was inherently unconstitutional:
We think that in using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regent's prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause . . . we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government tocompose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as apart of a religious program carried on by government.
Always a First Amendment fundamentalist who took the words of the amendment at face value, Black cited no other cases to support this contention, insteadconcentrating on British and American history to illustrate the strength of the founding fathers' prohibition against any intermingling of church and state affairs. In contrast, the lone dissenter, Justice Stewart, maintained thatthe Establishment Clause merely forbids government establishment of a state religion. At the time, Stewart's opinion was disregarded. More recently, however, the Court's attitude towards prayer in the schools has softened, and in 1985, in his dissenting opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree William Rehnquist--who became chief justice the following year--adopted Stewart's line of argument.
Related Cases
- Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).
- Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
Official State Prayer
Even though schoolchildren now have the right, under the First Amendment's free-exercise clause, to pray silently while at school, there are some who would like a state-sponsored school prayer. The proponents of school prayer believe that bringing religion into the classroom will make our society less violent. They also believe that not allowing prayer in school takes away the rights of those who wish to do so. They also argue that adopting a formal prayer does not force anyone to pray who does not want to.
Opponents to formal prayer argue that it is not a necessary activity and thatit would force atheists and children in minority religions to conform with the majority. They also counter that allowing prayer into schools would be a clear violation of the First Amendment religious guarantees.
Sources
Seelye, Katharine Q. "House Rejects Drive to Allow Formal Prayer in the Schools."New York Times, 5 June 1998.
User Comments Add a comment…