User:Tf00f/sandbox

The case was brought by the families of public school students in New Hyde Park, New York who complained that the voluntary 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.^[1]

The plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth), which says in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The governments of twenty-two states signed on to an amicus curiae brief urging affirmation of the New York Court of Appeals decision that upheld the constitutionality of the prayer.^[2] 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.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black, the Court ruled that government-written prayers were not to be recited in public schools and were an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause. This was decided in a vote of 6-1, because before the decision could be announced, Justice Felix Frankfurter suffered a cerebral stroke that forced him to retire, and Justice Byron White took no part in the case.^[3]

The Court explained the importance of separation between church and state by giving a lengthy history of the issue, beginning with the 16th century in England. It then stated that school's prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of it being a prayer, and that prescribing such a religious activity for school children violates the Establishment Clause which according to Black, “must at least mean that it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.” The program, created by government officials to promote a religious belief, was therefore constitutionally impermissible.^[4]

The Court rejected the defendant's arguments that people are not asked to respect any specific established religion; and that the prayer is voluntary. The Court held that the mere promotion of a religion is sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion is not coercive. The Court further 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 still violates the Establishment Clause.

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.The ramifications of implimenting an idea or religion into public school systems are vast, not only does it impead on the rights of citizens but it can alter society as a whole and ultimately the way America is goverened.^[5]

• 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 State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
• Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
• Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
• Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
• Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)
• Herricks Union Free School District

^[1]

• Kurland, Philip B. (1961), "Of Church and State and the Supreme Court", University of Chicago Law Review, 29 (1): 1–96, doi:10.2307/1598520.
• Schwarz, Alan (1968), "No Imposition of Religion: The Establishment Clause Value", Yale Law Journal, 77 (4): 692–737, doi:10.2307/795008.
• Sutherland, Arthur E., Jr. (1962), "Establishment According to Engel", Harvard Law Review, 76 (1): 25–52, doi:10.2307/1338663{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

• Text of Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) is available from: Findlaw  Justia 
• Oyez.org