Engel V. Vitale 370 US 421

In the Emerson v. Board of Education Case New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards to provide transportation of children to and from school. The Board of Education of Ewing Township, following this law, authorized reimbursement to parents of money spent by their children on public buses. However, Arch Everson, a resident and taxpayer in the Ewing Township school district, learned that a reimbursement was going to parents who sent their children to Catholic schools as well. He then claimed that this money supported religion and violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Ultimately, the court ruled that the new law was not in violation of the establishment clause.

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

The Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe stated that student-led/ student-initiated prayer at high school football games violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. The Baptist religion was promoted in the Santa Fe Independent School District in Texas, which is located between Galveston and Houston. A teacher handed out flyers for a “revival meeting” which involved reading the bible and other Catholic things. They offered prayer up to God at graduations, assemblies, and football games. One mormon student and mother filed suit against the school district. Also, one catholic student and mother filed suit against the school district. Their lawsuit involved that the Establishment Clause was violated many times. They did not

Citation: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit, 1986 795 F2.d 1368, cert. granted, Supreme Court of the United States, Eighth Circuit, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts took note that the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ruling decided that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the Chief Justice also relied upon the precedent set forth in Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) which explained how "the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults." Additionally, the rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment," according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988). The special circumstances in Morse v. Frederick were first that the school has a policy that specifically forbids advocating illegal drug use due to the risks it imposes on other students, and second that principal Morse was forced to decide in the moment whether or not she should act.

Five negative developments have occurred since the removal of prayer from public school. Academic achievement has plunged (including SAT scores). There has been an increased rate of out-of-wedlock births, leaving single mothers to struggle to survive (Starr, 2014). Illegal drug use has gone rampant. The amount of juvenile crime has skyrocketed. Lastly, behavior in school has drastically deteriorated. William Jeynes, a professor at California State College, says “ so we need to realize that these actions do have consequences” (Starr, 2014). These negative developments have occurred since the Engle v. Vitale case of 1962.

Engel v. Vitale was at the time a landmark United States Supreme Court case that was ruled it is unconstitutional for state officials to basically compose an official school prayer and encourage it on public school grounds. The case of Engel v. Vitale was brought up by a group of families of New Hyde Park school students, who in short complained that the U.S prayer written by the state board “Almighty God” challenged their religious beliefs. They were greatly supported by groups who opposed the school prayer including Jewish organizations, Judaic Organizations, and Ethical Culture. The parties were not members of a single religious group. The five were made up of 3 Jews and two suppose spiritual people who did not belong to one single organized

The appeals court decision came almost 40 years to the day after the Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. In that case, the court ruled it unconstitutional for public schools to allow prayer, even though the prayer was non-denominational and students were allowed abstain from the exercise. When

The Union Free School District No.9 (also known as the Herricks School District), in New Hyde Park, New York, voted in favor of adopting this prayer into their public schools. Parents of ten pupils attending schools in this school district, sued the school board, saying that the prayer went against their religious views and the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law, "respecting the establishment of religion." To say that the Regent's prayer is unconstitutional is an oxymoron in itself, for this

The prayer was, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country” (Oyez 1). The state of New York approved the prayer, and the prayer was nondenominational. Children whose parents did not want them to recite the prayer did not have to participate, and were excused; reciting the prayer was voluntary. Therefore, the prayer was not mandatory and was supposed to serve as a purpose of moral education only for those who wanted to acknowledge God as the source of all blessings. However, New York Lawyers argued that the prayer offended the Establishment Clause, suggesting that the state of New York was officially approving a religion by approving the prayer. This action eventually led to the Supreme Court ruling the prayer as unconstitutional. With the success of ruling Engel v. Vitale unconstitutional, the case set a precedent for many more court cases in which the Supreme Court used the Establishment Clause as a jurisdiction for removing religious practices in public schools.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier was a lost fight for the First Amendment rights in schools. When a couple of school journalists’ articles were blocked by the principal of Hazelwood East High School, the students decided that they needed to take their case to the courts. One of the articles was a story about

In summarizing the salient points of the Supreme Court case Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, it had to do with the respondent’s father who sued candidates, including a school region, affirming that the school locale's approach requiring the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at his little girl's school damaged the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the father had standing and decided for the father. Certiorari was conceded to audit the standing and First Amendment issues.

In 1960 Madalyn Murray O’Hair sued Baltimore public schools for requiring students to read the Bible and to recite the Lord’s prayer. At this time in history reciting prayers and reading the Bible were common in schools across the nation. Children could be excused from this exercise if they were equipped with a note from their parents. Instead of O’Hair following this procedure she believed that this exercise violated the First Amendment rights. The case ended up making it to the Supreme Court where is was joined with a similar case. In 1963, the court ruled in favor of O’Hair with an eight to one vote. The Supreme Court decision ended prayer and prayer recitation in schools. To this day this court decision has caused much controversy.

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruling of the case of Zelman V. Simmons-Harris stated that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause to provide scholarships for some students to attend private or parochial schools.  This ruling had a subsequent impact on the development of S1872, also known as the Opportunity Scholarship Act. This act allowed for vouchers to go to private or religious schools. Changes from S1872 resulted in an almost $1 billion dollar revenue loss for school funding by the end of its fifth year (NJEA, 2011).  In addition to the government revenue lost, a 100% tax credit is given to companies who donate to these funds thus losing additional revenue.  The children given these scholarship vouchers are children from targeted failing school areas, which then result in that already failing district to lose additional weighted funding for those children.

The issue of school prayer is not one of religious freedom, as it is already legal for children to pray in school, either individually or in groups. Since the Engel decision in 1962, religious advocates have been assailing the Supreme Court for "taking God out of the classroom." In an effort to reverse this trend, conservative religious groups have been fighting for the passage of a school prayer amendment to gain greater leeway for religious activities in schools.