Engel v. Vitale

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Engel v. Vitale
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
, even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and students may remain silent or be excused from the classroom during its recitation.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Case opinions
MajorityBlack, joined by Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan
ConcurrenceDouglas
DissentStewart
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

public schools, due to violation of the First Amendment.[1] The ruling has been the subject of intense debate.[2][3][4]

Background

In November 1951 the Board of Regents of New York proposed that public schools start the day with a non-denominational prayer. School boards were authorized, but not required, to adopt the recommendation. It became known as The Regents' Prayer because it was written by the New York State Board of Regents.[5] The prayer was twenty-two words that went as follows:

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

The proposal was adopted by the

Jewish man, became the named plaintiff.[6][7]

The plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer violates the

American Ethical Union each submitted briefs urging the Court to instead reverse and rule that the prayer was unconstitutional.[9]

Lower court history

Bernard S. Meyer wrote the opinion for the trial court ruling that the Establishment Clause "does not prohibit the non-compulsory saying of the Regents' prayer in the public schools". Meyer's reasoning was based on the "accepted practice" at the time the amendments were adopted:[10][11]

The reason the 'establishment' clause is not breached is ... because traditionally, and particularly at the time of the adoption of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, this was the accepted practice.

Aside from the historical analysis, the trial court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Zorach v. Clauson:[10]

The Zorach case holds that the Constitution does not require separation in every and all respects and, as we have seen, constitutional history confirms a tradition of prayer, including prayer in the schools...the instant prayer, at least when its recitation is limited to daily exercises at the opening of school, must be classified as outside McCollum's proscription of religious instruction and within Zorach's sanction as an accommodation.

The Appellate Division for the Second Department affirmed the trial court's judgment in a

per curiam opinion. George Beldock wrote a separate opinion, concurring in part, and dissenting in part. Beldock did not agree with the trial court's reasoning that morning prayer at public schools was an "accepted practice" at the time the amendments were adopted.[12] Citing Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, supported by additional reasoning based on Zorach v. Clauson, Beldock argued that the Regent's Prayer merely reaffirmed "that this is a religious nation".[10] He said the Establishment Clause was not violated because "an accommodation of secular education to the voluntary prayer or confession of religious faith" was not a religious teaching or instruction.[12]

After losing in the state courts, the parents filed a federal appeal, which they lost. The divided New York Court of Appeals agreed with the lower state courts that the Regents' prayer could be read in public schools without violating the Establishment Clause as long as student participation was voluntary.[13] The courts said the prayer was constitutional because of the opt-out provision.[14]

Supreme Court of the United States

In a 6–1 decision, the Supreme Court held that reciting government-written prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[9]

Majority opinion

Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black wrote that recitation of a government-written prayer by school children was "a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause" that breached the "Constitutional wall of separation between Church and State" even though the prayer is "non-denominational" and voluntary.[15][3]

Although the Court had recognized a "wall of separation" between church and state in

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947), McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) and Zorach v. Clauson (1952), Justice Black did not cite any of them in reaching his decision, relying solely on historical analysis.[16][17] The opinion included a lengthy history of religious freedom, concluding:[18]

It is a matter of history that this practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America.

He compared the government-written Regents' prayer to the Book of Common Prayer which was the government authorized prayer book of the Church of England.[a] The Court said coercion was not required by the Establishment Clause, but that a form of indirect coercion existed even though the prayer was non-mandatory: [21]

When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.

Justice Black's analysis that the separation of Church and state "stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy to permit its 'unhallowed perversion' by a civil magistrate" quoted directly from James Madison's

Memorial and Remonstrance.[b][5][22]

Douglas concurrence

In a concurring opinion, Justice Douglas argued that the Establishment Clause is also violated when the government grants financial aid to religious schools.[2] He stated a view of the First Amendment that required the government to be neutral in religious matters:[15]

The philosophy is that the atheist or agnostic—the non-believer—is entitled to go his own way. The philosophy is that if government interferes in matters spiritual, it will be a divisive force.

The concurrence was highly criticized. Douglas argued that all religious exercise in public settings was unconstitutional, foreshadowing the Court's decision in

Abington v. Schempp
the following year which took a neutrality view of Establishment: "In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality".

Stewart dissent

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stewart contended that the Establishment Clause was originally written to abolish the idea of a state-sponsored church,[2] and not to stop a non-mandatory "brief non-denominational prayer".[9]

Reactions

Further information: School Prayer Amendment

The negative reaction of Congress was overwhelming. Only John Lindsay and Emanuel Celler supported the decision. Frank J. Becker called it "the most tragic decision in the history of the United States" and introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to allow religious exercises in public schools.[23] There was already a lot of anger towards the Warren Court, especially among white Protestants in the South and Midwest, for its school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education. After the Engel decision, some members of Congress, like George Andrews of Alabama and James Eastland of Mississippi, made references to both desegregation and prayer in schools in their attacks on the Warren Court.[23][24]

The Christian Century was critical of the southern politicians who opposed the ruling, accusing them of weaponizing the school prayer controversy "to whip the court for its desegregation of public schools".[25] New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote that politicians were trying to show "how equally wrong the Court had been to outlaw segregation".[26]

The

Senate Judiciary Committee headed by James Eastland held hearings on five measures to overturn the Engel decision. Bishop James Pike, a prominent religious moderate and lawyer, opposed the Court's broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause because it prohibited non-denominational prayer. He testified in support of a constitutional amendment that would limit the establishment of religion to "the recognition as an Established Church or any denomination, sect, or organized religious association".[23][25]

While internal debate continued within the Jewish community about the role of religion in the public square, the American Jewish Congress called the case "a great milestone", and the decision was celebrated by most American Jewish groups.[27][28]

Catholic clergy expressed strong disapproval of the decision. Cardinal Spellman said: "The decision strikes at the very heart of the Godly tradition in which America's children have for so long been raised." Led by John J. Rooney of New York, support among Catholics increased for federal funding for parochial schools.[5][10]

The

The Lord's Prayer in public school was ruled unconstitutional in Schempp the following year.[25]

Subsequent developments

Engel has been the basis for several subsequent decisions limiting government-directed prayer in school.[9] 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 middle 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-organized student-led prayer at high school football games in which a majority of students voted in favor of the prayer.[30]

A year after the 1962 ruling the Court decided in Abington School District v. Schempp that recitation of the Lord's Prayer and Bible reading in school were unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.

See also

Notes

  1. Elizabethan prayer book was approved in 1559 by the, until it was suppressed by Parliament in 1645, then restored again after the Interregnum that began with the execution of Charles I. The Church of England remained under government control until canonical authority was vested in the General Synod by the Worship and Doctrine Measure of 1974.[20]
  2. ^ "Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."

References

  1. ^ Hudson, David L. Jr. "Engel v. Vitale". www.mtsu.edu. Retrieved May 18, 2021.
  2. ^ a b c "Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale". United States Courts. Retrieved February 16, 2019.
  3. ^ a b "Engel v. Vitale". Oyez. Retrieved October 13, 2021.
  4. ^ "Engel v. Vitale (1962)". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved May 18, 2021.
  5. ^ a b c d Leo Pfeffer, The New York Regents' Prayer Case (Engel v. Vitale), 4 J. Church & St. 150 (1962).
  6. ^ David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment scholar (August 26, 2005). "Plaintiff in 1962 landmark school-prayer case reflects on his role". www.firstamendmentcenter.org. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.
  7. ISBN 9780472033454
    .
  8. ^ The amicus curiae brief was submitted by the attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
  9. ^ a b c d Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
  10. ^
    doi:10.1086/scr.1962.3108791
    . Retrieved March 8, 2024.
  11. ^ Matter of Engel v. Vitale 11 A.D.2d 340 (1960), (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department)
  12. ^ a b Schumb, Joseph G. "Religion in the Public Schools: Past and Future Institute of Contemporary Law". Santa Clara Law Review. 3.
  13. ^ Arthur E. Sutherland Jr. "Establishment According to Engel," 76 Harvard Law Review 25 (November 1962): 25-52
  14. ISBN 9780816067398
    .
  15. ^
    ISBN 9780415937566
    .
  16. ISBN 9780190452247
    .
  17. ^ "Wall of Separation". The Free Speech Center. Retrieved March 6, 2024.
  18. ^ "Church-State Separation: A Serpentine Wall?". ChristianityToday.com. July 20, 1962. p. 967. Retrieved March 6, 2024.
  19. ISBN 9781107082489
    .
  20. ISBN 9781135934859
    .
  21. ISBN 9780190283162
    .
  22. ISBN 978-3-031-35151-8
    .
  23. ^ a b c William M. Beaney; Edward N. Beiser, "Prayer and Politics: The Impact of Engel and Schempp on the Political Process" 13 Journal of Public Law 475 (1964): 475-503
  24. ISBN 9781421420585
    .
  25. ^
    ISBN 9780190908140
    .
  26. ISBN 9780700615261
    .
  27. ISBN 9780520248489
    .
  28. ISBN 9781644698839
    .
  29. ^ School Prayer: Hearings Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Eighty-Ninth Congress, Second Session, on Aug. 1-5, 8, 1966. US Government printing office. 1966. p. 35.
  30. ^ "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)". Justia Law. Retrieved March 7, 2024.

Further reading

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engel_v._Vitale&oldid=1218099113"