Pierce v. Society of Sisters
268 U.S. 510 (1925)
Chief Justice – William H. Taft
Associate Justices – Oliver W. Holmes, Willis Van Devanter, James C. McReynolds, Louis Brandeis, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Edward T. Sanford, Harlan F. Stone.
The Background: Following World War I, Oregon was concerned about the influence of immigrants and their foreign values. The created the Compulsory Education Act which required Oregon children between eight and sixteen to attend public school. The Sister of the Holy Names and Hill Military Academy both sued the states. Sisters asserted that their business would suffer based on this law while Hill took it a step further to say that the land which they invested in that serves a school purpose will lose its value.
The Decision: The Court upheld the lower court’s decision stating that by getting rid of this decision, this liberty, the state was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both students and parents should have the right to decide where they go to school.
Going forward: The decision paved the way for a transition to a larger interpretation of due process. As the decision allowed the 14th Amendment to apply to more than just individuals, it lengthened the list of liberties the Amendment protected.
Related Articles:
Two children were picked up by police officers for walking home from a park that was 3 blocks from their home. The parents intended to sue Child Protective Services believing the state interfered with their rights to raise their children as they see fit.
Everson v. Board of Education
330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Chief Justice – Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices – Hugo Black, Stanley F. Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B. Rutledge, Harold H. Burton.
Background: A tax funded school district in New Jersey provided reimbursement to parents of both public and private school children who utilized public transportation to get to school. A taxpayer in New Jersey was against this because the reimbursement of parents whose children attended private religious schools was a violation of the constitutional prohibition against the religious support by the state. To use the taxpayer’s money was also a violation of Due Process.
Result: The Court ruled that the bill was in fact constitutionally permissible because the reimbursements paid to parents (not the religious institution) and were offered to all students regardless of religion.
Related Articles:
A teachers frustration is portrayed over Americans obliviousness to religions. With the decision in Everson there is a misconception that schools cannot teach religion at all which makes this lack of knowledge worse.
McCollum v. Board of Education
333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Chief Justice – Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices – Hugo Black, Stanley F. Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Robert H. Jackson, Harold H. Burton, Tom C. Clark, Sherman Minton.
Background: In Champaign Illinois in 1940 a group of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews formed an association called the Champaign Council on Religious Education. After getting permission from the Champaign Board of Education the association began offering voluntary religious education classes to students. The classes were 30-45 minutes long and were led by leaders of the clergy in public school classrooms during school hours. Although voluntary, James McCollum was ostracized.
The Result: The Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision determined that these classes were unconstitutional. Justice Jugo Black held “[The facts] show the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council in promoting religious education. The operation of the state’s compulsory education system thus assists and is integrated with the program of religious instruction carried on by separate religious sects. Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released … in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend the religious classes.
To hold that a state cannot consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments utilize its public school system to aid any or all religious faiths or sects in the dissemination of their doctrines and ideals does not … manifest a governmental hostility to religion or religious teachings. … For the First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere.” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/203/case.html)
Engel v. Vitale
370 U.S. 421 (1962)
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.
The Background: In Hyde Park New York public school students complained that voluntary prayer included the words “Almighty God”. The students felt that opening the school day with the prayer violated the Establishment Clause.
The Result: The court ruled that a government-written prayer shouldn’t be recited in public schools.
Abington School District. v. Schempp
374 U.S. 203 (1963)
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, Arthur Goldberg.
The Background: In Abington Pennsylvania a state law was requiring students to both read and hear portions of the bible in their public schools. The case was consolidated with Murray v. Curlett when it went to the Supreme Court
The Result: The court upheld Engel v. Vitale saying that sanctioning of a prayer by the school violated the Establishment Clause. Organizing a reading of the bible in school was considered a religious exercise. Justice Brennan wrote a 73-page concurrence elaborating on her ideas of what the Framers meant. The case was used as precedent for Board of Education v. Allen and Lemon v, Kurtzman.
Board of Education v. Allen
392 U.S. 236 (1968)
Chief Justice – Earl Warren
Associate Justices – Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall.
The Background: In 1965 there was an amendment to the Education Law in New York requiring public school boards to lend textbooks to elementary and secondary school students enrolled in private and parochial schools. New York Central School District No. 1 argued that the law violated both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The Result: In a 6-3 decision the Court determined that because the law did not advance any individual religion or push religion in general it did not violate the First Amendment. The books were given to students and not to the schools.
Epperson v. Arkansas
393 U.S. 97 (1968)
Chief Justice – Earl Warren
Associate Justices – Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall.
The Background: This case was started to determine the constitutionality of a 1928 Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in public schools and universities. 10th grade biology instructor Sara Epperson filed suit in the Chancery Court to test the constitutionality of the statue. The Chancery Court agreed the statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which should protect students from state interference in freedom of speech and thought from the First Amendment. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the decision in 1967 stating that it was a valid exercise of stat power to specify the curriculum in their public schools.
The Result: Both sides decided to focus on the State’s rights to set curriculum standards and did not bring up the subject of evolutionary theory or boundaries between church and state. The Court determined that the clear purpose of the statute was to protect a particular religious view and for that reason was considered unconstitutional. After this the believers of Biblical creation argued that it should be taught alongside evolution
Lemon v. Kurtzman
403 U.S. 602 (1971)
Chief Justice – Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices – Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun.
The Background: Pennsylvania’s Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act which allowed the Superintendent of the public schools to reimburse private schools (most of which were Catholic) for salaries of teachers who taught with public textbooks and instructional materials.
The Result: in an 8-0 decision the Court determined this was a violation of the Establishment Clause. The decision established the “Lemon test” which outlined requirements for religious legislation:
- The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religious affairs. (also known as the Entanglement Prong)
-
- – Character and purpose of institution benefited.
- – Nature of aid the state provides.
- – Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
-
- The statute must not advance nor inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
- The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (also known as the Purpose Prong)
If any of the prongs are violated the actions of the government are deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.
Wisconsin v. Yoder
406 U.S. 205 (1972)
Chief Justice – Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices – William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr, William Rehnquist.
The Background: Due to their parent’s religious beliefs, three Amish students stopped attending New Glarus High School in Wisconsin. The families did not believe in settling disputes in court, following the biblical command to “turn the other cheek.” A Lutheran Minister, Reverend William C Lindholm took an interest in their case and decided to defend them.
The Result: The Court decided in a unanimous 9-0 decision in favor of Yoder. The U.S. Supreme Court held as follows:
- States cannot force individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights. In this case, the state of Wisconsin interfered with the practice of a legitimate religious belief.
- Not all beliefs rise to the demands of the religious clause of the First Amendment. There needs to be evidence of true and objective religious practices, instead of an individual making his or her standards on such matters. The Amish way of life is one of deep religious convictions that stems from the Bible. It is determined by their religion, which involves their rejection of worldly goods and their living in the Biblical simplicity. The modern compulsory secondary education is in sharp conflict with their way of life.
- With respect to the State of Wisconsin’s argument that additional modern education beyond 8th grade is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and productively in America’s political system, the Court disagreed. It argued that the State provided no evidence showing any great benefit to having two extra years in the public schools. Furthermore, the Court contended that the Amish community was a very successful social unit in American society, a self-sufficient, law-abiding member of society, which paid all of the required taxes and rejected any type of public welfare. The Amish children, upon leaving the public school system, continued their education in the form of vocational training.
- The Court found no evidence that by leaving the Amish community without two additional years of schooling, young Amish children would become burdens on society. To the contrary, the Court argued that they had good vocational background to rely upon. It was the State’s mistaken assumption that Amish children were ignorant. Compulsory education after elementary school was a recent movement that developed in the early 20th century in order to prevent child labor and keep children of certain ages in school. The State of Wisconsin’s arguments about compelling the school attendance were therefore less substantial.
- Responding to Justice Douglas’s dissent, the Court argued that the question before it was about the interests of the parents to exercise free religion, and did not relate to the child’s First Amendment’s rights. As such, the argument pertaining to the child’s right to exercise free religion was irrelevant in this case
Stone v. Graham
449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Chief Justice – Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices – William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr, William Rehnquist, John P. Stevens.
The Background: A Kentucky Statute required that the Ten Commandments be placed on the wall in each public school classroom in the state. The Commandments were purchased with private funding.
The Result: Using the precedent established in Lemon v. Kurtzman the court concluded that posting the Commandments served no secular legislative purpose and was therefore unconstitutional. Also the Commandments had a clear religious purpose. Because the statute endorsed religion and served no secular purpose it was unconstitutional.
Mueller v. Allen
463 U.S. 388 (1983)
Chief Justice – Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices – William J. Brennan Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr, William Rehnquist, John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor.
The Background: The plaintiff alleged that the law in Minnesota giving a state tax deduction to parents paying for school related expenses was mostly benefiting the parents paying for children’s tuition to private religious schools. The law limited the deduction to $500 per student in elementary school and $700 per student in middle school and high school. No deductions were allowed for any instructional books and materials used for religious teachings.
The Result: The Court held that the law was constitutional because it did not aid any religion. The dissenters, however, made the good point that it was unlikely a student at a public school would be needing to pay $700 for books and supplies.
Looking forward: The case was a turning point for Establishment law. The Court ruled more favorable where government aid was deemed religiously neutral and extended equally to everyone.
Aguilar v. Felton
473 U.S. 402 (1985)
Chief Justice – Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices – William J. Brennan Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr, William Rehnquist, John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor.
The Background: New York City had a program sending public school teachers into parochial school to provide remedial education under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
The Result: The court decided that the program created excessive entanglement between church and state and was a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
Wallace v. Jaffree
472 U.S. 38 (1985)
Chief Justice – Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices – William J. Brennan Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr, William Rehnquist, John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor.
The Background: A law in Alabama allowed teacher to set aside one minute in the beginning of the school day for a moment of “meditation or voluntary prayer.” Parent Ishmael Jaffree sued the Mobile County School Board because his youngest son was being made fun of by peers when he refused to say the prayers.
The Result: In a 9-0 decision the Court held that the Alabama law violated constitutional principle. From the court opinion:
Section 16-1-20.1 is a law respecting the establishment of religion and thus violates the First Amendment.
(a) The proposition that the several States have no greater power to restrain the individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does Congress is firmly embedded in constitutional jurisprudence. The First Amendment was adopted to curtail Congress’ power to interfere with the individual’s freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience……
(b) One of the well-established criteria for determining the constitutionality of a statute under the Establishment Clause is that the statute must have a secular legislative purpose. The First Amendment requires that a statute must be invalidated if it is entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion.
(c) The record here not only establishes that 16-1-20.1’s purpose was to endorse religion, it also reveals that the enactment of the statute was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose.” “…The State’s endorsement, by enactment of 16-1-20.1, of prayer activities at the beginning of each school day is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.
Edwards v. Aguillard
482 U.S. 578 (1987)
Chief Justice – William Rehnquist
Associate Justices – William J. Brennan Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr, John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia.
The Background: The US in the 1960s sought to catch up with science and reintroduced the teaching of evolution in public schools. By the early 80s many states were trying to introduce creationism when teaching evolution. Louisiana legislature passed a law, authored by State Senator Bill P. Keith of Caddo Parish, entitled the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” The Act did not require teaching either creationism or evolution, but did require that if evolutionary science was taught then “creation science” must be taught as well.
The Result: The Court decided in a 7-2 decision that the Act violated the Establishment Clause based on the Lemon Test. The court held that the Act lacked a clear secular purpose by both not protecting academic freedom and by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.
Lee v. Weisman
505 U.S. 577 (1992)
Chief Justice – William Rehnquist
Associate Justices – Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas.
Background: A principal at a Middle School in Providence, RI invited a Jewish Rabbi to speak at a graduation ceremony. The Weismans argued that a clergy-led prayer was a violation of the establishment clause. The school on the other hand argued that the prayer was nonsectarian and voluntary. The participation in the ceremony was voluntary and no one was obligated to stand during the prayer.
The Result: In a 5-4 decision the Court decided in the Weisman’s favor. They decided to preserve previous precedents limiting the role religion could play in public schools. One of the main issues that the court had was that Principal Lee had given the rabbi a pamphlet on composing prayers for civic occasions. The court found that by doing this the principal was directing and controlling the content of the prayers. They also decided the nonsectarian nature of the prayer was no defense because the Establishment Clause forbade coerced prayers in public schools. In response to the argument that the prayer was voluntary Kennedy formulated the coercion test.
“The school district’s supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places subtle and indirect public and peer pressure on attending students to stand as a group or maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction. A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it. And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting. Since adolescents are often susceptible to peer pressure, especially in matters of social convention, the State may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use direct means. The embarrassment and intrusion of the religious exercise cannot be refuted by arguing that the prayers are of a de minimis character, since that is an affront to the rabbi and those for whom the prayers have meaning, and since any intrusion was both real and a violation of the objectors’ rights.” 505 U.S. 577, 505 U.S. 577
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
509 U.S. 1 (1993)
Chief Justice – William Rehnquist
Associate Justices – Harry Blackmun, John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The Background: A deaf child transferred from a public school to Salpointe Catholic High School and was then denied a sign language interpreter by the Catalina Foothills School District.
The Result: The Court in a 5-4 decision decided that the School District providing an interpreter was not a violation of the Establishment Clause. However they decided not to make any decision about the reimbursement to the Zobrests for the interpreters services, which would be a decision of the lower court. Prior to the decision the Zobrests had successfully sought relief from a federal district court. The court concluded, “The service at issue in this case is part of a general government program that distributes benefits neutrally to any child qualifying as ‘handicapped’ under the IDEA, without regard to the ‘sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic nature’ of the school the child attends”.
Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet
512 U.S. 687 (1994)
Chief Justice – William Rehnquist
Associate Justices – Harry Blackmun, John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Background: A New York Statute created a school district on village lines and almost the entirety of the village was Satmar Hasidic Jews.
The Result: The court determined that the creation of a school district composed of just one religion created an unconstitutional religious aid.
Agostini v. Felton
521 U.S. 203 (1997)
Chief Justice – William Rehnquist
Associate Justices – John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer.
Background: In this 1997 case the court overruled Aguilar v. Felton (1985). Other Establishment Clause rulings undermined the basis on which Aguilar was decided and a majority of the Justices had expressed the Aguilar should either be reversed or reconsidered. The cost for the New York City Board was much higher than expected originally. These costs came from leasing properties and vehicles to provide areas for public school teachers to teach their students.
The Result: The court found the program that was previously found unconstitutional was not aiding or inhibiting religion in any way. Public school teachers were able to instruct at religious schools so long as what they taught was secular and neutral.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
530 U.S. 290 (2000)
Chief Justice – William Rehnquist
Associate Justices – John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer.
Background: A school district in Texas allowed student to give prayers over a speaker system at home football games. After 2 sets of parent and child filed a suit against the school for violating the Establishment Clause the school changed it’s policy during litigation. They held a school election to determine if prayers should be give and another election to determine who should give them. The District Court allowed this policy so long as the prayers were nonsectarian and non-proselytizing. Both the School District and the Does appealed the decision. The School district because they disagreed with the necessity of “nonsectarian and non-proselytizing” and the Does because the still believed the prayer was unconstitutional. In the Court of Appeals it was decided that student-led prayers were only permissible at graduation.
The Result: The Supreme court upheld the decision saying that these prayers on school property at school-sponsored events over a public speaker system were public speech and that regardless of a personal belief any prayer will be perceived as having the school’s seal of approval.
Mitchell v. Helms
530 U.S. 793 (2000)
Chief Justice – William Rehnquist
Associate Justices – John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer.
Important note: This case overturned Meek v. Pittenger (1975) and Wolman v. Walter (1977)
Background: Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 gave federal funds to local educational through state educational agencies. Educational materials and equipment were then lent to public and private elementary and secondary schools to implement secular programs. In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana 30% of these funds were distributed to Catholic schools leading opposition from groups saying their taxes should not be subsidizing religious schools.
The Result: The court voted 6-3 that aid could be provided to religious schools so long as it was also aided to a legitimate non-religious purpose in the same manner.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
536 U.S. 639 (2002)
Chief Justice – William Rehnquist
Associate Justices – John P. Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer.
Background: By lottery poor families in Cleveland were given tuition vouchers for up to $2,250 to attend participating private or public schools in the city or neighboring suburbs or gave tutorial aid to students who stayed in the public schools. 82% or participating schools were religiously affiliated and 96% of the students who received vouchers chose to enroll in a religiously affiliated school.
Result: The court came up with a test refered to as the privat choice test which stated a voucher program must meet the following criteria to be considered constitutional:
1. the program must have a valid secular purpose
2. aid must go to parents and not to the schools
3. a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered
4. the program must be neutral with respect to religion
5. there must be adequate nonreligious options
The court ruled that the Ohio program met the five-part test in that:
1) the valid secular purpose of the program was “providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system”
2) the vouchers were given to the parents
3) the “broad class” was all students enrolled in currently failing programs
4) parents who received vouchers were not required to enroll in a religious-based school
5) there were other public schools in adjoining districts, as well as non-sectarian private schools in the Cleveland area, available that would accept vouchers.
The decision was split 5-4 with those agreeing saying it offered support to poor families who were disadvantaged further by a failing school system. Those who disagreed felt the decision contradicted Everson vs. Board of Education and that religious and secular education by not being able to be separated violated the Establishment Clause.