Engel v. Vitale

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 (more) 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
Case history
Prior	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	186 N.E.2d 124 (N.Y. 1962)
Holding
Government-directed, denominationally neutral and non-mandatory prayer in public schools does not violate 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 M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr. Potter Stewart · Byron White
Case opinions
Majority	Bob Walter Black, joined by Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan
Dissent	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.

Background of the case

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 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 decisions

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.

Black's majority opinion

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.

Stewart's dissent

In his dissent, Stewart argued the historical background regarding England, the Book of Common Prayer, and the separation of church and state is 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.

Subsequent history

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.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 370
• List of United States Supreme Court cases
• Separation of Church and State in the United States
• West Virginia Board of Ed. v. Barnette (1943)
• Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
• Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
• Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

External links

• Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com
• Oyez.org