Rachel Spenia's List: Engel V. Vitale

• Facts of the Case: 

   

  The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. This was an attempt to defuse the politically potent issue by taking it out of the hands of local communities. The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country."
• Question: 

   

  Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?
• Conclusion: 

   

  Yes. Neither the prayer's nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies. Despite the passage of time, the decision is still unpopular with a majority of Americans.
• Advocates

   

   

    Porter R. Chandler (Argued the cause for the intervenors-respondents)

   

    William J. Butler (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

   

    Bertram B. Daiker (Argued the cause for the respondents)

• Decisions

   

         

   

   

   Decision: 6 votes for Engel, 1 vote(s) against
   Legal provision: Establishment of Religion
• Case Basics

   

   

   

   

    Docket No.: 

    468

   

   

   

   

   

   

    Petitioner: 

    Engel

   

   

   

   

   

   

    Respondent: 

    Vitale

   

   

   

   

   

   

    Decided By: 

    Warren Court (1962)

   

   

   

   

   

   

    Opinion: 

    370 U.S. 421 (1962)

   

   

      

   

   

   

    Argued: 

    Tuesday, April 3, 1962

   

   

    

   

   

   

    Decided: 

    Monday, June 25, 1962

   

   

   

   

   

   

    Issues: 

   First Amendment, Establishment of Religion

   

   

   

   

   

   

    Categories: 

   conlaw, states, freedom of religion, first amendment, establishment of religion, education
• Full Opinion by Justice Hugo L. Black

5 more annotations...

• • 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
  • Vote: 7-1
  • For the Court: Black
  • Concurring: Douglas
  • Dissenting: Stewart
  • Not participating: White
• he Board of Regents of the state of New York has the authority to supervise the state's educational system. In 1961, this state education board composed a short prayer: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country." The Board of Regents recommended daily recitation in schools of this nondenominational prayer, on a voluntary basis.
• Although the Regents prayer was only a recommendation, the New Hyde Park Board of Education required that this prayer be said aloud at the beginning of each school day by each class of students in the district and in the presence of a teacher. The parents of 10 students objected to this requirement as a violation of the principle of separation of church and state in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. They took legal action to compel the local board of education to discontinue the use in public schools of an official prayer that was contrary to their beliefs and practices.
  
• The Issue Did the New York Board of Regents and the New Hyde Park Board of Education violate the 1st Amendment ban on laws "respecting an establishment of religion"?
  
• Opinion of the Court The Court decided to strike down the Regents prayer. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, said that the primary concern in this case was the creation of the prayer and the subsequent distribution of it throughout the state by an official agency of the state government. These actions violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, which was applicable to the state of New York through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black concluded, "Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary [in school districts other than New Hyde Park] can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause [which] is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not."
•    Dissent Justice Potter Stewart dissented on the grounds that the Regents prayer was nondenominational and voluntary. Justice Stewart wrote: "With all due respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an 'official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of the Nation."
• Significance This case, in combination with the decision in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), established a strong position in favor of a strict separation of church and state. However, opponents have continued to challenge this view. In his dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), Justice William Rehnquist rejected the idea of strict separation of church and state. Rather, he argued, the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment was meant only to prevent the government from favoring one religion over another.
   

   

    
  

5 more annotations...

• ENGEL v. VITALE, 370  U.S. 421 (1962)   

    370  U.S. 421  

  ENGEL ET AL. v. VITALE ET AL.   
  CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.   
  No. 468.  
  Argued April 3, 1962. 
  Decided June 25, 1962. 
    

   

    

    
• Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436.

• William J. Butler argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Stanley Geller. 

    Bertram B. Daiker argued the cause for respondents. With him on the briefs was Wilford E. Neier. 

• Porter R. Chandler argued the cause for intervenors-respondents. With him on the briefs were Thomas J. Ford and Richard E. Nolan. 

    Charles A. Brind filed a brief for the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York, as amicus curiae, in opposition to the petition for certiorari. 
• Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by Herbert A. Wolff, Leo Rosen and Nancy Wechsler for the American Ethical Union; Louis Caplan, Edwin J. Lukas, Paul Hartman, Theodore Leskes and Sol Rabkin for the American Jewish Committee et al.; and Leo Pfeffer, Lewis H. Weinstein, Albert Wald, Shad Polier and Samuel Lawrence Brennglass for the Synagogue Council of America et al.

• he respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day: 

   

  "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." 

4 more annotations...

• Argued April 3, 1962--Decided June 25, 1962
• Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day--even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436.
• Majority/Concurring Opinion
• MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
• The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day:
  
  "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and
  we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and
  our Country."
  
  This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and legislative powers over the State's public school system. (See Note 1.) These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program."
• Shortly after the practice of reciting the Regents' prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of ten pupils brought this action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. Among other things, these parents challenged the constitutionality of both the state law authorizing the School District to direct the use of prayer in public schools and the School District's regulation ordering the recitation of this particular prayer on the ground that these actions of official governmental agencies violate that part of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution--which commands that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--a command which was "made applicable to the State of New York by the Fourteenth Amendment of the said Constitution." The New York Court of Appeals, over the dissents of Judges Dye and Fuld, sustained an order of the lower state courts which had upheld the power of New York to use the Regents' prayer as a part of the daily procedures of its public schools so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection. (See Note 2.) We granted certiorari to review this important decision involving rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (See Note 3.)
  

4 more annotations...

• Historical Background

  After World War II, the United States experienced another period of intense concern about the spread of communism abroad and fear of subversion at home. The Federal Government enacted a program requiring all employees to take loyalty oaths, while U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed there were communist agents in government. Alleged “communist spies” were called forth to give testimony before a Senate subcommittee chaired by McCarthy. These hearings had the impact of sensational court dramas that filled the media, while the deployment of U.S. soldiers to fight communist aggression in Korea made the threat of communism at home all the more palpable. In this context, some States enacted a variety of programs to encourage patriotism, moral character, and other values of good citizenship. They also began challenging separation of church and state issues in hopes of providing students with strong moral and spiritual stamina. In this case, the Warren Court once again was to take up a controversial issue.

• Circumstances of the Case

  In 1951 the New York State Board of Regents (the State board of education) approved a 22-word “nondenominational prayer” for recitation each morning in the public schools of New York. It read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” The Regents believed that the prayer could be a useful tool for the development of character and good citizenship among the students of the State of New York. The prayer was offered to the school boards in the State for their use, and participation in the “prayer-exercise” was voluntary. In New Hyde Park, New York, the Union Free School District No. 9 directed the local principal to have the prayer “said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of the school day.”

  The parents of ten pupils in the New Hyde Park schools objected to the prayer. They filed suit in a New York State court seeking a ban on the prayer, insisting that the use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to their own and their children's beliefs, religions, or religious practices. The State appeals court upheld the use of the prayer, “so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection.”

• Constitutional Issues

  The question before the Court involved the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Did the Regents of New York violate the religious freedom of students by providing time during the school day for this particular prayer? Did the prayer itself represent an unconstitutional action—in effect, the establishment of a religious code—by a public agency? Did the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment prevent schools from engaging in “religious activity”? Was the “wall of separation” between church and state breached in this case?

• Arguments

  For Engel (the parents): The separation of church and state requires that government stay out of the business of prescribing religious activities of any kind. The Regents' prayer quite simply and clearly violated the 1st Amendment and should, therefore, be barred from the schools.

  For the Regents of the State of New York: The New York Regents did not establish a religion by providing a prayer for those who wanted to say it. Countless religious elements are associated with governments and officials, reflecting the religious heritage of the nation. New York acted properly and constitutionally in providing an optional, nonsectarian prayer. It would be an intrusion into State matters for the Supreme Court to strike down the right of the Regents to compose the prayer and encourage its recitation.

• Decision and Rationale

  The Court found the New York Regents' prayer to be unconstitutional. Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for the 6-1 majority: “We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' Prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings…in the Regents' Prayer is a religious activity…”

  Black further explained that “When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain…. The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed perversion' by a civil magistrate.”

  To support the Court's finding, Black referred to the following ideas of the Framers: “To those who may subscribe to the view that because the Regents' official prayer is so brief and general [it] can be no danger to religious freedom…, it may be appropriate to say in the words of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:… 'Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?'”

  The Court's decision was not, Black pointed out, antireligious. It sought, rather, only to affirm the separation between church and state. “It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers…” Thereafter, State governments could not “prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.”

3 more annotations...