Petitioner
William C. Stone, et al.
Respondent
James Graham, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Kentucky
Petitioner's Claim
That a Kentucky law requiring posting of the Ten Commandments in public schoolrooms violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
William C. Stone
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Edward L. Fossett
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H.Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White (unsigned)
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, Harry A. Blackmun, Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
17 November 1980
Decision
Upheld Stone's claim and overturned a Kentucky Supreme Court decision allowing copies of the Ten Commandments to be posted in all public classrooms for secular (non-religious) purposes.
Significance
The ruling found that placement of a copy of the Ten Commandments in public classrooms constituted unlawful promotion of the Christian religious tradition. The Establishment Clause violation was largely based on the lack of integration of the Ten Commandments into a formal school curriculum. Various organizations and public school districts have since developed and adopted such curricula. The ruling also marked a growing trend by the Court to evaluate the purpose of state legislation in individual cases, not just the effects of laws.
In 1978 the state of Kentucky passed legislation requiring placement of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private donations, on the wall of each public school classroom. Also required was a notation in small print at the bottom of each display. The notice stated that the "secular application ofthe Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States." Despite complaints, James Graham, Superintendent of Public Instruction in Kentucky, defended the stated secular purpose and emphasized the use of private funds. Stone filed suit with state court claiming the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The clauseguarantees separation of church (religion) and state (government). Governmentcan neither favor one religion over another nor religion over non-religion.
The state court accepted the secular purpose as stated in the Kentucky law. The court found the action neither promoted or inhibited any religion or religious group nor involved the state excessively in religious matters. Appeal tothe Kentucky Supreme Court led to affirmation of the lower court's finding through a tie vote. Stone then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Coercion in the Classroom?
Determining what degree of government action constitutes unlawful promotion of religious belief in the classroom has long been debated. In the 1963 Abington School District v. Schempp case, the Supreme Court established thatgovernment actions must have a "secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion" to not violate the Establishment Clause. This "purpose and effect" test was later merged with the concept of "entanglement" in the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman case to create the three-part Lemon test. The Lemon test asks three questions: (1) is the purposeof the legislation secular or religious; (2) does the primary effect of thelegislation favor a particular religion, and (3) does the legislation resultin excessive "entanglement" of the government. Entanglement refers to the degree of control and involvement the government finds itself having in a religious activity. The courts have defined three levels of government "favoritism"to determine the effect legislation poses: coercion, endorsement, and acknowledgment. The Supreme Court has consistently considered most religious-oriented activities in public school classrooms as coercion because school attendance is mandatory and children are particularly impressionistic, and hence aremore susceptible to influence than adults. Rulings on the Establishment Clause are based on application of this test. Inclusion of Abington for legislative purpose, as a separate measure of constitutionality, substantially increased the range of government actions potentially violating the Establishment Clause.
The Supreme Court, in applying the Lemon test to determine if the Kentucky law was permissible under the Establishment Clause, came to a different conclusion than the two lower courts. In a majority opinion unsigned by the five justices, a 5-4 vote found the Kentucky law had no secular legislative purpose despite Kentucky's asserting the non-religious intent written in the law itself and in the disclaimer on each posting. The majority wrote that the "preeminent purpose [was] plainly religious" because the "Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitalof a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact." The Court found the Ten Commandments had not been integrated into a school curriculum for purposes of study in history, civilization, ethics, or comparative religion. Hence, the posting served no valid public educational function. The majority alsofound that even though the copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased withprivate monies, public funds were still spent in administering the statute itself and that constituted excessive entanglement.
The Secular Impact of Religion
Joined in dissent by Justices Blackmun, Stewart and Chief Justice Burger, Justice Rehnquist asserted that the "Court's summary rejection of a secular purpose articulated by the legislature and confirmed by the state court is without precedent in Establishment Clause jurisprudence." He considered the questioning of Kentucky legislature intent highly inappropriate. The Court decisionwas thus assuming an implied unlawful religious purpose or desired effect bythe state legislature and he believed this finding was unsupported by fact. Rehnquist wrote that the Court should accept Kentucky's statement in good faith and not rule the law void because the stated secular purpose might conflictwith what others may see as religious. Rehnquist further wrote, "The Establishment Clause does not require that the public sector be insulated from all things which may have a religious significance or origin." In summary, he acknowledged the integral role of religion in U.S. history and government and that Kentucky was appropriately instructing its students on the "secular impactof the Ten Commandments." Rehnquist finished by protesting the lack of oral arguments and legal briefs presented to the Court in this case.
Impact
The 1990s witnessed a nationwide spiritual revival and a rise in conservativeChristian activism, including organizations such as the Promise Keepers andChristian Coalition. Groups such as these expressed an increasing desire forgreater religious expression in public schools as well as government buildings. The number of student religious clubs in public schools also grew significantly, including Jewish and Muslim as well as Christian clubs.
Some believed that, owing to glaring inconsistencies in Supreme Court decisions involving the Establishment Clause, the resulting confusion in society inappropriately kept religion largely out of public schools. Minimally, this avoidance had resulted in generations of students who lack knowledge concerningthe impact of religion on the United States and the world. Worse yet, many believed Court decisions banning prayer and other religious expressions, such as the posting of the Ten Commandments, contributed in the 1990s to a perceived significant moral decline in younger generations. For example, violent crime in public schools increasingly became a concern. Republican legislators came into power in the 1994 elections and promised to introduce a "school prayer" amendment. By 1998 Congress debated a proposed constitutional amendment, titled the Religious Freedom Amendment. The new amendment sought to recognize anew right to practice religion in public schools and on government property,including the display of religious symbols, such as the Ten Commandments, and allowing the use of public funds to support private religious schools.
Many hold the Ten Commandments as a cornerstone of Western civilization and the basis for the U.S. legal system. Similarly, the Court repeatedly recognized the substantial contributions religion made to historical events and socialtrends in the United States. Even the majority in Abington, which prohibited the daily reading of Bible verses in a public school, asserted that astudent not exposed to religious ideas and texts would receive a less than full education by leaving them ignorant of the importance of religion in U.S.history. Consequently, critics believed the Court had been overzealous in theapplication of the Establishment Clause in a number of cases, including Stone.
Display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings continued to be an issuethrough the 1990s. A U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals prohibited a display in aGeorgia courthouse in 1994. The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama filed a lawsuit the following year to stop a state court judge from posting a wood carving of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. By 1998 resolutions encouraging the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings were introduced in both houses of Congress. Critics claimed that Christians and Jews werebeing accorded a privileged status in violation of the Establishment Clause.
In response to the growing public sentiment of the early 1990s, President Bill Clinton issued a Memorandum on Religious Expression in the Public Schools in July of 1995. The document recognized the role of religion and religious institutions in the history of the United States and asserted that "the First Amendment permits--and protects--a greater degree of religious expression in public schools than many Americans may now understand." The Clinton memorandumoutlined several principles to guide public school districts in accommodating religious activity in schools. In support of curricula using religious material in the classroom, the 1995 Clinton memorandum stipulated that though "[p]ublic schools may not provide religious instruction, . . . they may teach about religion"(emphasis not added). Curriculum examples included history of religion, comparative religion, Bible-as-literature, and the role of religion in the history of the United States.
Curricula examining the Bible's influence in art and literature were taught in some public schools in the 1990s but were not free of contention. Organizations that actively pursued development and adoption of religious-oriented curricula in public schools included the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center ofVanderbilt University and the National Council on Bible Curriculum in PublicSchools. Not all Christian organizations supported efforts to place religious materials in the classroom, choosing instead to emphasize respect and recognition of the increasing religious diversity in the nation.
Still, the 1990s witnessed a trend toward more leniency in introducing religious symbols in public places. The public supported efforts to bring moral values, as exemplified in the Ten Commandments, back into public activities as long as harmony and inclusiveness was promoted rather than division or exclusion. For instance, some Muslim groups did not oppose posting the Ten Commandments as long as it was not interpreted as excluding beliefs of other religions, but accepted as representative of the rich religious tradition in America.Toward the end of the 1990s, the place of religion in public schools continued to be the subject of substantial debate.
Aside from religion issues, the Stone decision also demonstrated an increased willingness of the Court to question the intent behind state legislation. The Court generally avoided passing judgement on the legitimacy of legislative actions in previous decisions. This new tendency led to more debate over the appropriateness of Stone and similar Supreme Court findings issued since.
Related Cases
William C. Stone, et al.
Respondent
James Graham, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Kentucky
Petitioner's Claim
That a Kentucky law requiring posting of the Ten Commandments in public schoolrooms violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
William C. Stone
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Edward L. Fossett
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H.Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White (unsigned)
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, Harry A. Blackmun, Potter Stewart
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
17 November 1980
Decision
Upheld Stone's claim and overturned a Kentucky Supreme Court decision allowing copies of the Ten Commandments to be posted in all public classrooms for secular (non-religious) purposes.
Significance
The ruling found that placement of a copy of the Ten Commandments in public classrooms constituted unlawful promotion of the Christian religious tradition. The Establishment Clause violation was largely based on the lack of integration of the Ten Commandments into a formal school curriculum. Various organizations and public school districts have since developed and adopted such curricula. The ruling also marked a growing trend by the Court to evaluate the purpose of state legislation in individual cases, not just the effects of laws.
In 1978 the state of Kentucky passed legislation requiring placement of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private donations, on the wall of each public school classroom. Also required was a notation in small print at the bottom of each display. The notice stated that the "secular application ofthe Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States." Despite complaints, James Graham, Superintendent of Public Instruction in Kentucky, defended the stated secular purpose and emphasized the use of private funds. Stone filed suit with state court claiming the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause states that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The clauseguarantees separation of church (religion) and state (government). Governmentcan neither favor one religion over another nor religion over non-religion.
The state court accepted the secular purpose as stated in the Kentucky law. The court found the action neither promoted or inhibited any religion or religious group nor involved the state excessively in religious matters. Appeal tothe Kentucky Supreme Court led to affirmation of the lower court's finding through a tie vote. Stone then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Coercion in the Classroom?
Determining what degree of government action constitutes unlawful promotion of religious belief in the classroom has long been debated. In the 1963 Abington School District v. Schempp case, the Supreme Court established thatgovernment actions must have a "secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion" to not violate the Establishment Clause. This "purpose and effect" test was later merged with the concept of "entanglement" in the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman case to create the three-part Lemon test. The Lemon test asks three questions: (1) is the purposeof the legislation secular or religious; (2) does the primary effect of thelegislation favor a particular religion, and (3) does the legislation resultin excessive "entanglement" of the government. Entanglement refers to the degree of control and involvement the government finds itself having in a religious activity. The courts have defined three levels of government "favoritism"to determine the effect legislation poses: coercion, endorsement, and acknowledgment. The Supreme Court has consistently considered most religious-oriented activities in public school classrooms as coercion because school attendance is mandatory and children are particularly impressionistic, and hence aremore susceptible to influence than adults. Rulings on the Establishment Clause are based on application of this test. Inclusion of Abington for legislative purpose, as a separate measure of constitutionality, substantially increased the range of government actions potentially violating the Establishment Clause.
The Supreme Court, in applying the Lemon test to determine if the Kentucky law was permissible under the Establishment Clause, came to a different conclusion than the two lower courts. In a majority opinion unsigned by the five justices, a 5-4 vote found the Kentucky law had no secular legislative purpose despite Kentucky's asserting the non-religious intent written in the law itself and in the disclaimer on each posting. The majority wrote that the "preeminent purpose [was] plainly religious" because the "Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitalof a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact." The Court found the Ten Commandments had not been integrated into a school curriculum for purposes of study in history, civilization, ethics, or comparative religion. Hence, the posting served no valid public educational function. The majority alsofound that even though the copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased withprivate monies, public funds were still spent in administering the statute itself and that constituted excessive entanglement.
The Secular Impact of Religion
Joined in dissent by Justices Blackmun, Stewart and Chief Justice Burger, Justice Rehnquist asserted that the "Court's summary rejection of a secular purpose articulated by the legislature and confirmed by the state court is without precedent in Establishment Clause jurisprudence." He considered the questioning of Kentucky legislature intent highly inappropriate. The Court decisionwas thus assuming an implied unlawful religious purpose or desired effect bythe state legislature and he believed this finding was unsupported by fact. Rehnquist wrote that the Court should accept Kentucky's statement in good faith and not rule the law void because the stated secular purpose might conflictwith what others may see as religious. Rehnquist further wrote, "The Establishment Clause does not require that the public sector be insulated from all things which may have a religious significance or origin." In summary, he acknowledged the integral role of religion in U.S. history and government and that Kentucky was appropriately instructing its students on the "secular impactof the Ten Commandments." Rehnquist finished by protesting the lack of oral arguments and legal briefs presented to the Court in this case.
Impact
The 1990s witnessed a nationwide spiritual revival and a rise in conservativeChristian activism, including organizations such as the Promise Keepers andChristian Coalition. Groups such as these expressed an increasing desire forgreater religious expression in public schools as well as government buildings. The number of student religious clubs in public schools also grew significantly, including Jewish and Muslim as well as Christian clubs.
Some believed that, owing to glaring inconsistencies in Supreme Court decisions involving the Establishment Clause, the resulting confusion in society inappropriately kept religion largely out of public schools. Minimally, this avoidance had resulted in generations of students who lack knowledge concerningthe impact of religion on the United States and the world. Worse yet, many believed Court decisions banning prayer and other religious expressions, such as the posting of the Ten Commandments, contributed in the 1990s to a perceived significant moral decline in younger generations. For example, violent crime in public schools increasingly became a concern. Republican legislators came into power in the 1994 elections and promised to introduce a "school prayer" amendment. By 1998 Congress debated a proposed constitutional amendment, titled the Religious Freedom Amendment. The new amendment sought to recognize anew right to practice religion in public schools and on government property,including the display of religious symbols, such as the Ten Commandments, and allowing the use of public funds to support private religious schools.
Many hold the Ten Commandments as a cornerstone of Western civilization and the basis for the U.S. legal system. Similarly, the Court repeatedly recognized the substantial contributions religion made to historical events and socialtrends in the United States. Even the majority in Abington, which prohibited the daily reading of Bible verses in a public school, asserted that astudent not exposed to religious ideas and texts would receive a less than full education by leaving them ignorant of the importance of religion in U.S.history. Consequently, critics believed the Court had been overzealous in theapplication of the Establishment Clause in a number of cases, including Stone.
Display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings continued to be an issuethrough the 1990s. A U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals prohibited a display in aGeorgia courthouse in 1994. The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama filed a lawsuit the following year to stop a state court judge from posting a wood carving of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. By 1998 resolutions encouraging the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings were introduced in both houses of Congress. Critics claimed that Christians and Jews werebeing accorded a privileged status in violation of the Establishment Clause.
In response to the growing public sentiment of the early 1990s, President Bill Clinton issued a Memorandum on Religious Expression in the Public Schools in July of 1995. The document recognized the role of religion and religious institutions in the history of the United States and asserted that "the First Amendment permits--and protects--a greater degree of religious expression in public schools than many Americans may now understand." The Clinton memorandumoutlined several principles to guide public school districts in accommodating religious activity in schools. In support of curricula using religious material in the classroom, the 1995 Clinton memorandum stipulated that though "[p]ublic schools may not provide religious instruction, . . . they may teach about religion"(emphasis not added). Curriculum examples included history of religion, comparative religion, Bible-as-literature, and the role of religion in the history of the United States.
Curricula examining the Bible's influence in art and literature were taught in some public schools in the 1990s but were not free of contention. Organizations that actively pursued development and adoption of religious-oriented curricula in public schools included the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center ofVanderbilt University and the National Council on Bible Curriculum in PublicSchools. Not all Christian organizations supported efforts to place religious materials in the classroom, choosing instead to emphasize respect and recognition of the increasing religious diversity in the nation.
Still, the 1990s witnessed a trend toward more leniency in introducing religious symbols in public places. The public supported efforts to bring moral values, as exemplified in the Ten Commandments, back into public activities as long as harmony and inclusiveness was promoted rather than division or exclusion. For instance, some Muslim groups did not oppose posting the Ten Commandments as long as it was not interpreted as excluding beliefs of other religions, but accepted as representative of the rich religious tradition in America.Toward the end of the 1990s, the place of religion in public schools continued to be the subject of substantial debate.
Aside from religion issues, the Stone decision also demonstrated an increased willingness of the Court to question the intent behind state legislation. The Court generally avoided passing judgement on the legitimacy of legislative actions in previous decisions. This new tendency led to more debate over the appropriateness of Stone and similar Supreme Court findings issued since.
Related Cases
- Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
- Lee v. Weisman, 505 V.S. 577 (1992).
User Comments Add a comment…