Engel Vs Vitale Summary

(2) Background Information As well as the lawsuit filed by Alton Lemon, this incident involved two other cases that fell under the same issue, Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DisCenso. Both conflicts involved a state law passed, through the Non- public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968, by the state of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. This act gave the government permission to fund religious based or parochial schools. Although the schools provided textbooks and instructional materials for secular subjects, a Pennsylvania instructor believed that this act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Lemon argued that that by providing this money

Board of Education is a very important landmark case. This case addressed the constitutionality of segregation in public schools back in the early 1950s. When the case was heard in a U.S. District Court a three-judge panel ruled in favor of the school boards. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court went through all its procedures and eventually decided that “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” ().

The Supreme Court case of Engel v. Vitale’s decision was based on the establishment clause. The case of Engel v. Vitale struck down state organized prayer in school. The prayer had government endorsement and was thus considered unconstitutional. The Supreme Court case of Oregon v. Smith used the free exercise clause the basis of their decision.

Abington SD vs. Schempp This case concerns Bible reading in the public schools of Pennsylvania. When the students who attended arrived for school, they were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After that, they were required to recite the Lord’s Prayer. The only way to avoid these activities was written note from the parents. The United States Supreme Court favored Schempp and declared this Bible reading to be unconstitutional.

Notаbly absent from the opinion, as it was in Plessy, is any citаtion to a Supreme Court cаse that considered whether the prаctice of segregating schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Аmendment. It was an open question for the Court. The Court аdmitted that the precedent to which it cited involved discriminаtion between whites and blacks rаther thаn other rаces. However, the Court found no аppreciable difference here—"the decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Аmendment."

This complaint case consisted of thirteen plaintiffs and twenty students who were forbidden from attending public schools with whites. The group filed a complaint to the board with the intention of changing the rule of segregation between colored and whites. Their complaint was seen unreasonable and the court found itself leaning towards the side of the Board of Education. This was because the schools were seen equally fair in terms of classroom settings, the staff, quality of education provided, etc. However, it still appeared unconstitutional because of content stated in the 14th amendment, which consists of the rights of the citizens and an equal amount of protection of the laws.

The issue in this case was whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This case dealt with a New York state law that had required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This law had also allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found that it was objectionable. There was a parent that sued the school on behalf of their child. Their argument was that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable

Interestingly, despite the issues of religion surrounding the case, the decision was reached due to a completely different reasoning; that the government cannot force anyone to express orthodox beliefs that are at odds with their conscience and values. According to the justices that ruled in favor of Barnette, the flag salute, in addition to the pledges, is a “form of utterance.” By enforcing a compulsory flag salute, the state board of education was creating a “compulsory unification of opinion,” inconsistent with the values of the First Amendment. The three other justices believed that the rules laid out by the state board of education was completely constitutional. Representing the dissenting judges, Justice Felix Frankfurter said, in essence, that the legislation was within the scope of power of the state because it encourages "good citizenship and national allegiance.

“We know the wealthy extremists who pushed this case want to limit the ability for workers to have a voice, curb voting rights and restrict opportunities for women and immigrants,” said Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union. The case was brought by the Center for Individual Rights, a libertarian group that pursued an unusual litigation strategy. Responding to signals from the Supreme Court’s more conservative justices, the group asked the lower courts to rule against its clients, a Christian education group and the teachers, so they could file an appeal in the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Terry Pell, the group’s president, said he was disappointed with Tuesday’s tie vote. “With the death of Justice

“The students alleged that Westside 's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requires that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages” (Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens by and Through Mergens). Many still argue today that Westside 's prohibition against the Christian club, consistent with the Establishment Clause, makes the Equal Access Act unconstitutional.

The court case Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Doe was a court case decided by the supreme court ruled on June 19 2000.  This was quite the controversial court case involving religion and the schools sponsoring of student lead prayer.   The court found that the school’s policy was biased towards religion and that it violated the first amendment, to be more specific the establishment clause.     It all started back in 1995 when students lead prayers before every home varsity football game.

Chapter three does a good job pointing out that compulsory attendance laws served as an impetus for challenging schools over both their segregationist and exclusionary policies toward students of differing race and ability (Yell, 2016, p. 36). At the time our government was sending a very ambiguous message to students and their families. On one hand, the law of the land dictated that students must attend school, conversely schools continued to exclude students with disabilities. This inherent contradiction let to parent advocacy groups challenging schools for the fair and equal treatment of their children.

Even if a child resides in a non-Cleveland City School District, a parent has enough money to send them to a school in a different district of their choosing. In regards to the larger American society, this ruling implies that although one’s religion and the government play a large role in the lives of society members, they do so independently. America prides itself on the

In 1951, the following prayer was written that was intended to be recited each morning as part of the regents’ Statement of Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” Because the regents made the recitation of the prayer each day entirely optional to the school boards and the individual families of students, many New York school districts shunned the prayer because of their eclectic student bodies. Not only was the state religiously and ethnically diverse, but religious instruction in state schools was declared unconstitutional by the 1948 Supreme Court decision in the McCollum vs. Board of Education case. Because of the constantly increasing controversy about religious teaching in public schools, at least 90% of New York districts were not using the prayer by the late 1950s. Then, in 1958, five parents (of varying religions and ethnicities) of students within the district filed a lawsuit to stop the use of the prayer in their schools.

As a result of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, The United States legislators wrote the Southern Manifesto in 1956. They believed that the final result of Brown v. Board of Education, which stated that separate school facilities for black and white children were fundamentally unequal, was an abuse of the judicial power. The Southern Manifesto called for the exhaust of all the lawful things they can do in order to stop all the confusion that would come from school desegregation. The Manifesto also stated that the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution should limit the power of the Supreme Court when it comes to these types of issues. 2.