Engel Vs Vitale
I’m going to write about how cases of the past have massively affected our lives today and how we do and say things. A major issue we have faced and are still facing is the controversy of religion and how it affects our everyday lives and children. I have chosen to discuss a large and notorious US Supreme Court case that was heard originally in 1960 in Hyde Park, New York.
This brought The First Amendment and Education together for something that ultimately changed history and altered school mornings forever. Engel Vs Vitale was hands down one of the biggest stories in the community. Church and state were suddenly tied together and the legal and educational worlds were not in unison. All this started with one opening statement, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."
In 1958 five parents of the Long Island community brought suit to stop the prayers use in schools. Two parents were Jewish; one parent was a Unitarian, One a member of The Ethical Culture Society and One Self-Professed Atheist. At first the lawsuit failed. Justice Bernard S. Meyer found the prayer religious but not in violation. Instead, Justice Meyer ordered the schools to set up safe guards against “embarrassing and pressures” towards children who did not wish to participate. The New York Appellate Division upheld this decision along with the state’s Court of Appeals, by a vote of 5-2.
In 1960 Steven I. Engel, A Long Island Jewish parent was the Plaintiff who complained that the voluntary prayer written by the state board of regents to "Almighty God" challenged their religious beliefs. William J. Vitale Jr. was the President of The ...
... middle of paper ...
... one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services," wrote Black.
“The 1962 Engel v. Vitale ruling spurred much dissent, as seen in this image of Texas high school students beginning the day in prayer two days after the Court's decision.”
The Supreme Court Justices involved in this case consisted of seven men to make the final decision and they are listed as followed:
1. Chief Justice Earl Warren
2. Justice Hugo L. Black
3. Justice William J. Brennan Jr.
4. Justice William O. Douglas
5. Justice Tom C. Clark
6. Justice John Marshall Harlan Jr.
7. Justice Potter Stewart
In this Supreme Court ruling majority took precedence and was the deciding factor. The final decision came down to a 6-1 vote and the opinion was delivered by Justice Hugo Black.. He delivered the news that the ruling was in favor of Mr. Steven Engel.
While the Plaintiffs
Why was the case brought? Give a detailed summary of the factors that led to the case (250 words).
The decision was a 6-3 decision. The Justices that agreed with the ruling of the court were Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, White, Stevens, and O’Connor. The Justices that did not agree were Powell, Berger, and Rehnquist.
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
By 1997 the case, along with another case, (Quill v. Vacco), reached the Supreme Court. The decision in the Supreme Court did not, however, meet up to the original case. The defense won the trial.
This case was appealed to the Supreme Court on June 17, 1963. The Court ruled 8-1 against the prayer recitation. This ruling was partially due to the case Engel v. Vitale, where a similar Establishment Clause issue was approached. In both cases, the strict...
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case is a litigation that was brought by an atheist father seeking for a determination of the constitutionality of the practice of recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students since it contained the phrase “under God.” The Supreme Court had two major issues to determine i.e. whether Newdow had the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the practice and school board’s policy and whether the phrase “under God” was an infringement of the Establishment Clause of the country’s constitution. In its ruling, the Supreme Court argued that Michael Newdow did not have the legal standing to file the litigation since he was a non-custodial parent.
The interpretation of the case is just as popular, if not more, than the actual result of the case. The worldwide attention and media coverage the case received produced many opinions. Scholar’s opinions range from describing the case as an irrelevancy and a good show to describing it as a “Watershed in American religious history” (Ronald L. Numbers, 1998, p. 76). A large factor in why the Scopes trial has received so much attention in an insignificant town is because of the stage that the trial was played out on.
... The Web. The Web. 18 Mar. 2010. http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles/10rguments.htm>. “Roe v. Wade.”
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Rieff, Burt. "Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty: The School-Prayer Controversy in Alabama, 1962-1985." Alabama Review 3(2001):163. eLibrary. Web. 31 Aug. 2011.
Such precedent setting decisions are usually derived from the social, economic, political, and legal philosophy of the majority of the Justices who make up the Court, and also represent a segment of the American population at a given time in history. Seldom has a Supreme Court decision sliced so deeply into the basic fabric that composes the tapestry and direction of American law or instigated such profound changes in cherished rights, values, and personal prerogatives of individuals: the right to privacy, the structure of the family, the status of medical technology and its impact upon law and life, and the authority of state governments to protect the lives of their citizens.(3-4)
The case Elk Grove Unified School District versus Newdow came about when a student parent, Michael Newdow, an atheist, has a disagreement with the Pledge of Allegiance. Elk Grove Unified School District is a public elementary school where teachers begin the day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is considering being voluntary. Under California law, all elementary schools must recite the Pledge of Allegiance once a day unless those student object due to their religion. As stated before, in 1954 the Congressional Act added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow took it upon himself to review the School District policy referring to the religious portion. This caused Michael Newdow to sue in the federal district court in California, stating making students listen to the Pledge of Allegiance, even if the students do not choose to participate to the word “under God” violates the establishment clause of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
Gaylor, Annie Laurie. The Case Against School Prayer. “Keep the Church and State Forever Separate.” Madison, Wisconsin: Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 1995. ( www.ffrf.org/pray.html )