Engel v. Vitale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Engle v. Vitale)
Jump to: navigation, search
Engel v. Vitale
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 3, 1962
Decided June 25, 1962
Full case name: Steven I. Engel, et al. v. William J. Vitale, Jr., et al.
Citations: 370 U.S. 421; 82 S. Ct. 1261; 8 L. Ed. 2d 601; 1962 U.S. LEXIS 847; 20 Ohio Op. 2d 328; 86 A.L.R.2d 1285
Prior history: 191 N.Y.S.2d 453 (Sup. Ct. 1959), aff'd, 206 N.Y.S.2d 183 (App. Div. 1960), aff'd, 176 N.E.2d 579 (N.Y. 1961)
Subsequent history: 186 N.E.2d 124 (N.Y. 1962)
Holding
Government-directed prayer in public schools, even if it is denominationally neutral and non-mandatory, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Associate Justices: Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White
Case opinions
Majority by: Black
Joined by: Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan
Dissent by: Stewart
Frankfurter and White took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools.

Contents

The case was brought by the parents of students at Herricks High School who complained the prayer to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs. They were supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including rabbinical organizations, Ethical Culture, and Judaic organizations. The prayer in question was:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.

The plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer (even if students are not required to recite it) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth), which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The governments of twenty-two states[1] signed on to an amicus curiae brief urging affirmance of the Pana York Court of Appeals decision that upheld the constitutionality of the prayer. The American Ethical Union, the American Jewish Committee, and the Synagogue Council of America each submitted briefs urging the Court to instead reverse and rule that the prayer was unconstitutional.

The court decided that government-directed prayer in public schools was an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. This was decided in a vote of 6-1, with Justice White unable to participate because he was not yet a member of the court during oral arguments and Justice Frankfurter not participating for unknown reasons.

Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, argued the importance of separation between church and state by giving a lengthy history of the issue, beginning with the sixteenth century in England. He then claimed the prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of it being a prayer. The majority further ruled that prescribing such a religious activity for school children violates the Establishment Clause. The program, created by government officials to promote a religious belief, is therefore impermissible.

In response to the defendant's claims that: (a) people respect any specific established religion; and (b) the prayer is voluntary, Black's opinions held that neither of these claims frees it from contradicting the Establishment Clause. The opinion held that the fact that it promotes a religion is sufficient to conclude it is in violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. Furthermore, the opinion held that the fact that the prayer is vaguely worded enough not to promote any particular religion is not a sufficient defense, as it still promotes a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which is also a violation of the Establishment Clause.

In his dissent, Stewart argued that the majority's background narratives regarding England, the Book of Common Prayer, and the separation of church and state are irrelevant since England had then and has now an established religion. He said nobody is trying to establish a state church, as England had done; rather, the real issue is whether they will prohibit those who want to begin their day at school with prayer from doing so. Moreover, he argued that phrases like "the wall of separation" are nowhere in the Constitution and Black used them uncritically.

Stewart then listed the religious references present at the top of all three branches of the federal government and on American coins, in the National Anthem, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and in one of the court's recent decisions (Zorach v. Clauson). He argued that neither these examples, nor the voluntary prayer in New York established a religion.

Engel became the basis for several subsequent decisions limiting government-directed prayer in school. In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the Supreme Court ruled Alabama's law permitting one minute for prayer or meditation was unconstitutional. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the court prohibited clergy-led prayer at high school graduation ceremonies. Lee v. Weisman, in turn, was a basis for Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000), in which the Court extended the ban to school sanctioning of student-led prayer at high school football games.

  1. ^ The amicus curiae was joined by the attorney generals of Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Advanced Search
Included Web Search Engines


Safe Search

close

Top Matching Results

Occasionally Search.com will highlight specialized results that are based on the context of your query. Examples of specialized results include specific links to news, images, or video.

Top Matching Results may highlight information from other Search.com pages, content from the CNET Network of sites, or third party content. The listings are based purely on relevance. Search.com does not receive payment for listings in this section but our partners that provide this data may get paid for listing these products.

Sponsored Links

This section contains paid listings which have been purchased by companies that want to have their sites appear for specific search terms and related content. These listings are administered, sorted and maintained by a third party and are not endorsed by Search.com.

Search Results

Search.com sends your search query to several search engines at one time and integrates the results into one list which has been sorted by relevance using Search.com's proprietary algorithm. You can customize the list of search engines included in your metasearch from the preferences.

The search engines that are used in your metasearch may allow companies to pay to have their Web sites included within the results. To view the Paid Inclusion policy for a specific search engine, please visit their Web site. Search.com does not accept payment or share revenue with any search engine partner for listings in this section.