Appellant
George C. Wallace, Governor of Alabama
Appellee
Ishmael Jaffree
Appellant's Claim
That public schools can provide students with a minute of silence each day for purposes of meditation or prayer without violating the doctrine of church-state separation.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
John S. Baker, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Ronnie L. Williams
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
4 December 1984
Decision
The Supreme Court struck down the Alabama "moment of silence" statute.
Significance
The Court remained firm in its opposition to statutes like Alabama's, which was clearly intended to reintroduce prayer into the schools. However, the Court did leave an opening for some other state to introduce a truly undefined, uncommitted "moment of silence" into its school system.
Ishmael Jaffree was a resident of Mobile County, Alabama. On 28 May 1982, hefiled suit in federal district court on behalf of his three school-age children. They were, he claimed, being subjected to regular prayer services and other forms of religious indoctrination as a part of the regular school day. Jaffree named as defendants the governor of Alabama, George Wallace, and variousother state officials. At a preliminary hearing in the case, state Senator Donald G. Holmes testified about the statute that permitted religious or quasi-religious activity in the Alabama public schools. He said that as the primesponsor of the bill, his intention was to use the proposed legislation to return voluntary prayer to the public schools. When it was first passed in 1978,the statute had called for a minute of silence for "meditation." In 1981, the statute was amended so that the moment of silence could be spent in "meditation or voluntary prayer." Then in 1982, the law was changed again to permitteachers to lead "willing students" in a prayer to "Almighty God."
In the end, the district court concluded that there was no impediment to Alabama's establishment of a state religion. Jaffree then appealed this judgmentto the federal appellate court, which overturned the district court's decision. Since the law in question clearly was meant to advance religion, it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . " Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions had made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states, as well as the federal government. After this decision, the SupremeCourt granted Governor Wallace's petition for review, but agreed only to address the constitutionality of the 1981 amendment to the Alabama "minute of silence" law.
There was some reason to believe that at this moment in history, the Court might be open to some quasi-religious observation in the public schools. Popular response to the Court's decisions upholding a wall between church and statein Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) had been negative, and ever since 1971, polls had consistently shown that more than 75 percent of respondents favored school prayer. When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, he made no secret of his ambition toreintroduce prayer in the public schools. And the Court itself had shown somesigns that it might be relenting. Recently it had ruled, in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), that a city-sponsored Christmas display including a nativitycreche did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Court Strikes Down "Minute of Silence" Law as Impermissible State Sponsorship of Religion
Writing for the Court, however, Justice Stevens made it immediately clear that the Alabama law, which was intended from its inception to reintroduce prayer into the schools, would not pass constitutional muster. The district court's conclusion that there was no constitutional barrier to state-sponsored religion was, he wrote, "remarkable." Stevens first rehearsed the history of theEstablishment Clause. Then, applying the Court's latest test for deciding Establishment Clause questions, developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), heconcluded that the Alabama statute lacked the necessary "secular purpose."
Stevens's opinion did, however, leave one small opening. If the Alabama legislature had simply left matters where they stood in 1978, he hinted, the outcome might have been different:
Related Cases
Moment of Silence
Is it constitutional to require a moment of silence at the beginning of the day in a public school? Opponents believe a "moment of silence" law is an unconstitutional attempt to bring prayer back into the public schools. They contend that in order for the law to be constitutional, it must state that the silent time be spent for meditation only and not suggest that it be for prayer.For instance, they argue that a law that allows students the opportunity for"meditation or voluntary prayer" has a religious purpose and therefore violates First Amendment rights.
Those in favor of the "moment of silence" feel that the law is constitutionalepecially if it states that it is for "meditation or voluntary prayer." Theyargue that this makes it clearer that the child can use the time as they wish and are not being pressured to pray.
Sources
Eastland, Terry. Religious Liberty in the Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993.
George C. Wallace, Governor of Alabama
Appellee
Ishmael Jaffree
Appellant's Claim
That public schools can provide students with a minute of silence each day for purposes of meditation or prayer without violating the doctrine of church-state separation.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
John S. Baker, Jr.
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Ronnie L. Williams
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
4 December 1984
Decision
The Supreme Court struck down the Alabama "moment of silence" statute.
Significance
The Court remained firm in its opposition to statutes like Alabama's, which was clearly intended to reintroduce prayer into the schools. However, the Court did leave an opening for some other state to introduce a truly undefined, uncommitted "moment of silence" into its school system.
Ishmael Jaffree was a resident of Mobile County, Alabama. On 28 May 1982, hefiled suit in federal district court on behalf of his three school-age children. They were, he claimed, being subjected to regular prayer services and other forms of religious indoctrination as a part of the regular school day. Jaffree named as defendants the governor of Alabama, George Wallace, and variousother state officials. At a preliminary hearing in the case, state Senator Donald G. Holmes testified about the statute that permitted religious or quasi-religious activity in the Alabama public schools. He said that as the primesponsor of the bill, his intention was to use the proposed legislation to return voluntary prayer to the public schools. When it was first passed in 1978,the statute had called for a minute of silence for "meditation." In 1981, the statute was amended so that the moment of silence could be spent in "meditation or voluntary prayer." Then in 1982, the law was changed again to permitteachers to lead "willing students" in a prayer to "Almighty God."
In the end, the district court concluded that there was no impediment to Alabama's establishment of a state religion. Jaffree then appealed this judgmentto the federal appellate court, which overturned the district court's decision. Since the law in question clearly was meant to advance religion, it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . " Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions had made the Establishment Clause applicable to the states, as well as the federal government. After this decision, the SupremeCourt granted Governor Wallace's petition for review, but agreed only to address the constitutionality of the 1981 amendment to the Alabama "minute of silence" law.
There was some reason to believe that at this moment in history, the Court might be open to some quasi-religious observation in the public schools. Popular response to the Court's decisions upholding a wall between church and statein Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) had been negative, and ever since 1971, polls had consistently shown that more than 75 percent of respondents favored school prayer. When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, he made no secret of his ambition toreintroduce prayer in the public schools. And the Court itself had shown somesigns that it might be relenting. Recently it had ruled, in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), that a city-sponsored Christmas display including a nativitycreche did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Court Strikes Down "Minute of Silence" Law as Impermissible State Sponsorship of Religion
Writing for the Court, however, Justice Stevens made it immediately clear that the Alabama law, which was intended from its inception to reintroduce prayer into the schools, would not pass constitutional muster. The district court's conclusion that there was no constitutional barrier to state-sponsored religion was, he wrote, "remarkable." Stevens first rehearsed the history of theEstablishment Clause. Then, applying the Court's latest test for deciding Establishment Clause questions, developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), heconcluded that the Alabama statute lacked the necessary "secular purpose."
Stevens's opinion did, however, leave one small opening. If the Alabama legislature had simply left matters where they stood in 1978, he hinted, the outcome might have been different:
The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriatemoment of silence during the school day. The 1978 statute already protectedthat right, containing nothing that prevented any student from engaging in voluntary prayer during a silent minute of meditation.The separate concurring opinions of Justices Powell and O'Connor emphasized the point that some "moment of silence" statutes might in fact be constitutional.
Related Cases
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
- Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
- Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
Moment of Silence
Is it constitutional to require a moment of silence at the beginning of the day in a public school? Opponents believe a "moment of silence" law is an unconstitutional attempt to bring prayer back into the public schools. They contend that in order for the law to be constitutional, it must state that the silent time be spent for meditation only and not suggest that it be for prayer.For instance, they argue that a law that allows students the opportunity for"meditation or voluntary prayer" has a religious purpose and therefore violates First Amendment rights.
Those in favor of the "moment of silence" feel that the law is constitutionalepecially if it states that it is for "meditation or voluntary prayer." Theyargue that this makes it clearer that the child can use the time as they wish and are not being pressured to pray.
Sources
Eastland, Terry. Religious Liberty in the Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993.
User Comments Add a comment…