Case Analysis: Prayer at School CASE: LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) COURT: Argued in the United States Supreme Court on November 6, 1991, and decided on June 24, 1992. PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Robert Lee, principal at Nathan Bishop Middle School, at the time of the case, was the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: The parents of Deborah Weisman, a student at Nathan Bishop Middle School, at the time, were the respondents. BACKGROUND FACTS: While planning the graduation ceremony for Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence, Rhode Island, Robert Lee asked a rabbi to say a “secular” prayer to open the ceremony. Offended at this idea, the parents of student Deborah Weisman, sought a temporary restraining order in District …show more content…
After the ceremony, the parents sought a permanent injunction banning clergymen from praying at future graduations. The federal district court found the prayers unconstitutional because they failed the Lemon test. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision. The case was then given certiorari when Robert Lee took it to the Supreme Court. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM: Robert Lee claimed that having clergy recite the non-sectarian prayer at the graduation ceremony is an important tradition and does not violate the Establishment Clause because the prayer is non-sectarian and thus the prayer does not establish one religion over another. Furthermore, Lee and the other defendants argued that attendance at the graduation ceremony was voluntary. DEFENDANT’S CLAIM: Deborah Weisman’s parents claimed that a rabbi’s prayer at a public school graduation ceremony was a violation of the Establishment Clause. REMEDY SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF: Robert Lee sought a reversal of the permanent injunction banning him from having clergymen recite prayers at future graduation ceremonies. APPEAL PROCESS: The respondent won the case in the District …show more content…
VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) COURT: Argued in the United States Supreme Court on April 3, 1962, and decided on June 25, 1962. PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Steven I. Engel, et al. one of five parents who sued the school board of Herricks Union Free School District in New York. Mr. Engel was Jewish. The other parents were Jewish, atheist, and Unitarian, and one was a member of the New York Society for Ethical Culture. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: William J. Vitale Jr., et al. the president of the school board of Herricks Union Free School District in New York. BACKGROUND FACTS: A New York State law was adopted and enacted that mandated that all public schools recite the pledge of allegiance and a non-denominational prayer to start the school day. Students were allowed to not stand for the prayer. The school board of Herricks Union Free School District in New York adopted and approved the non-denominational prayer that the Board of Regents of New York had written and proposed in 1951 to start the school day. The prayer was as follows, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country,” (CITATION). The New York District Court ruled in favor of Vitale, claiming that the prayer was not a violation of the Establishment Clause. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM: The plaintiffs claimed that the school prayer was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the
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...
Doe case, Taking place in Texas in the year 2000, ended with a five to four verdict (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The decision was in support of Doe, a Mormon family and a Catholic family that contested the school’s support of prayer at football games. The result of this case restricted the first amendment freedom of religion. The “wall” between religion and government that the Establishment Clause creates was present in this case (Cornell University Law School). The end of this case led to a strong divide between public schools and students’ religious practices. This case caused social changes to occur that affected public schools across America. Other public schools and parents of public school students saw the outcome of this case as an example of the “wall” that exists between church and state and that it will be enforced. Because of this case, many schools changed or abolished their own policies regarding
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.
Prayer in public schools became an issue in 1960: Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued the Baltimore MD school system on behalf of her son William J Murray, because he was being forced to participate in prayer in schools. Ultimately, her actions and the actions of the American Atheist Organization resulted in the Supreme Court ruling of 1962. (Tragically, she disappeared in August of 1995. In January 2001, a full five and a half years after they were last seen, the bodies of the Murray-O’Hairs were finally found on a sprawling ranch near the little town of Camp Wood, Tex.)
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.
First Amendment Rights of Public School Students How the judicial branch rules in cases relating to the 1st and how they relate that to all the rights of public school students. This includes anything from flag burning to not saluting the flag to practicing religion in school. The main point of this paper is to focus on the fact that schools have a greater ability to restrict speech than government. Research Question Does government or school districts have the ability to restrict free speech? This is a very important question because this gives great power to one over the other.
The case Engel v. Vitale in 1962 decided that school prayer is unconstitutional. With this case, it was pointed out that the students were to "voluntarily" recite the following prayer: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country." The court ruled that this rule was unconstitutional according to the First Amendment's "establishment clause," which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
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
Taylor, Stuart. "School Prayer a Issue a Judicial Minefield." The Connecticut Law Tribune. September 27, 1999: Sec. News.
Chapter three of Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints inspired me to research today’s issues of school prayer. To understand how we got to where we are today, I first delved into our countries history of court cases pertaining to rulings on prayer in schools. Lastly, to update my audience on how our lives are being affected today, I directed my efforts toward finding current situations. By analyzing these situations, I gained knowledge for a better understanding of why society needs to be aware of these controversies. I don’t think there should be any form of organized prayer in today’s public schools.
Prohibiting School Prayer Threatens Religious Liberty. Civil Liberties. Ed. James D. Torr. -. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003.
Prayer in School: Good or Bad? As secular humanists and groups like the Christian Coalition are at war with each other regarding prayer in high schools behind closed doors in Washington DC, the average high school kid is the one that gets caught in the middle. For years now there has been a heated debate about whether or not prayer should be allowed in school. Every time the argument is rekindled, it ends in a stalemate, and is a topic that campaigning politicians tend to stay away from.
This paper discusses how the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United States government interact to allow each individual in a public school freedom to pray while not endorsing any religion.
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 )