Engel v. Vitale

• Article

• Talk

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools , due to violation of the First Amendment .[1] The ruling has been the subject of intense debate.[2] [3] [4]

Contents

• 1 Background

• 2 Lower court history

• 3 Supreme Court of the United States

  • 3.1 Majority opinion

  • 3.2 Douglas concurrence

  • 3.3 Stewart dissent

• 4 Reactions

• 5 Subsequent developments

• 6 See also

• 7 Notes

• 8 References

• 9 Further reading

• 10 External links

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engel_v._Vitale&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Religion in New York public schools had a long, contentious history, with protests against religious messaging dating back to at least 1906.[5]

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 .[6] 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 Herricks Union Free School District adopted the proposal in July 1958. Students could opt out with a parent's signature. Five parents of public school students attending Herricks High School in New Hyde Park sued the school board president William J. Vitale Jr., challenging the constitutionality of the Regents' Prayer.[6] Two of the plaintiffs were Jewish, one was an atheist, one was a Unitarian church member , and one was a member of the New York Society for Ethical Culture . Steven I. Engel, a Jewish man, became the lead plaintiff.[7] [8]

The plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment . The governments of twenty-two states submitted an _amicus curiae _ brief to the Supreme Court urging affirmance of the New York Court of Appeals decision which upheld the constitutionality of the prayer.[9] The American Jewish Committee , the Synagogue Council of America , and the American Ethical Union each submitted briefs urging the Court to instead reverse and rule that the prayer was unconstitutional.[10]

Lower court history

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engel_v._Vitale&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Lower court history")

Bernard S. Meyer wrote the trial court opinion 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:[11] [12]

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 _:[11]

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 said the decision should not be based on whether school prayer was an "accepted practice" at the time the amendments were adopted.[13] Instead, citing _Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States _, and supported by additional reasoning in _Zorach v. Clauson _, Beldock argued that 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 and merely reaffirmed "that this is a religious nation".[13] [11]

On further appeal, 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.[14] The courts said the prayer was constitutional because of the opt-out provision.[15]

Supreme Court of the United States

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engel_v._Vitale&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Supreme Court of the United States")

In a 6–1 decision (Justices Felix Frankfurter and Byron White did not participate), the Supreme Court held that reciting government-written prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[10]

Majority opinion

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engel_v._Vitale&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: 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 "wall of separation between Church and State".[16] Even though the prayer is "non-denominational" and voluntary the Court found there was indirect coercion of religious minorities: "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."[17] [18]

Justice Black's reasoning included historical analysis:[19] [20]

It is a matter of history

…