Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1962

Engel v. Vitale

370 U.S. 421 | 82 S. Ct. 1261 | 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 | 1962 U.S. LEXIS 847 | 20 Ohio Op. 2d 328 | 86 A.L.R. 2d 1285

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Engel held that the Establishment Clause forbids a public school from sponsoring a state-composed prayer, even if the prayer is nondenominational and students may opt out.

Background

New York's Board of Regents, a state governmental body with broad authority over public education, composed and recommended a short daily prayer for use in public schools: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” Acting under state law, the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9 directed that each class recite the prayer aloud in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of every school day.

Parents of ten students challenged the practice in New York state court. They alleged that the official prayer conflicted with their and their children's beliefs and violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to New York through the Fourteenth Amendment. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the program, provided that objecting students could remain silent or be excused from the exercise. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a state may compose and encourage the recitation of a prayer in its public schools without violating the Establishment Clause when participation is not compulsory.

Holding

No. New York's use of an official, state-composed prayer in public-school classrooms violated the Establishment Clause.

Reasoning

The Regents' prayer was indisputably a religious activity: it acknowledged dependence on God and asked for divine blessings. New York did not merely permit private religious expression; state officials wrote, recommended, and placed the prayer within a daily governmental school program.

The Establishment Clause at least forbids government from composing official prayers for Americans to recite as part of government-sponsored religious activity. Through the Fourteenth Amendment, that limitation binds state as well as federal government. The Court therefore treated government authorship and official sponsorship of prayer as constitutionally decisive.

The Court grounded this rule in the history that produced the Establishment Clause. English rulers and Parliament had prescribed official forms of worship through the Book of Common Prayer, while competing religious groups sought political power to alter those forms or to escape them. Early American colonies likewise adopted official religions when particular groups gained governmental control.

The Founders responded to that history by rejecting governmental authority over religious doctrine and worship. Madison, Jefferson, and other opponents of religious establishments understood that religious belief and prayer are matters of individual conscience that should not be controlled by changing political majorities or civil officials.

The Clause protects against more than direct legal coercion. Official governmental support for a religious belief carries the government's prestige and power and creates indirect pressure on religious minorities to conform. More fundamentally, the Establishment Clause bars the government's involvement even where no person can prove that he or she was compelled to participate.

The Court also emphasized that establishment threatens both government and religion. Government alignment with religion can breed resentment among those with different beliefs, while religion can lose its integrity when it relies on civil power rather than voluntary faith. The constitutional design thus leaves religious functions to individuals and to the religious communities they choose.

Issue #2

Whether the prayer's nondenominational wording and the availability of silence or excusal for objecting students save the program from an Establishment Clause violation.

Holding

No. Neither denominational neutrality nor voluntary participation removes the constitutional defect in state-sponsored prayer.

Reasoning

A prayer does not become constitutionally permissible merely because it is broad or nondenominational. New York still officially endorsed the religious beliefs expressed in the Regents' prayer by selecting its words and incorporating its recitation into the public-school day.

The option to remain silent or leave the room addresses possible Free Exercise concerns, but it does not answer the distinct Establishment Clause question. An establishment may exist without direct compulsion; the government may not prescribe an official religious exercise simply because dissenters are formally allowed not to join.

The Court rejected the claim that invalidating the prayer displayed hostility to religion. The First Amendment protects voluntary prayer and religious belief by preventing civil authorities from writing or sanctioning official prayers. Governmental neutrality in religious matters is meant to preserve, rather than diminish, religious liberty.

The brevity and apparent modesty of the prayer did not alter the result. Invoking Madison, the Court reasoned that constitutional liberty requires vigilance at the first governmental experiment in religious establishment, because authority sufficient to endorse general Christianity could readily be used to favor a particular sect.

Concurrences

Justice Douglas

Reasoning

Justice Douglas agreed that New York's practice was unconstitutional but framed the question more narrowly as whether government may finance a religious exercise. Although students could remain silent or be excused, a publicly paid teacher led a prayer in a public institution during the school day. In his view, public financing of the religious exercise itself was constitutionally impermissible.

Douglas acknowledged that analogous governmental practices existed, including prayers opening courts and legislatures and publicly funded chaplains. But he regarded those examples as constitutionally suspect rather than as justification for New York's practice. The fact that a teacher spent only a small fraction of public time on the prayer did not matter, because the principle against state financing of religious exercises applied regardless of degree.

He did not view the school prayer as an establishment in the narrow historical sense of creating a preferred, tax-supported church. Nonetheless, government support of religious exercises injects a divisive force into civic life, particularly where citizens hold differing religious views or no religious belief at all. The First Amendment therefore requires governmental neutrality in theology and ritual.

Douglas also questioned the consistency of Everson v. Board of Education, which had permitted public reimbursement of transportation costs for parochial-school students. Drawing on Justice Rutledge's Everson dissent, he maintained that government support of religious institutions invites sectarian competition for public funds and compromises the independence on which religious liberty depends.

Dissents

Justice Stewart

Reasoning

Justice Stewart argued that the program did not establish religion because New York allowed only willing students to join a short, nondenominational prayer. State courts required protections against compulsion, embarrassment, and pressure, and students who objected could remain silent or be excused. In his view, permitting voluntary prayer was not the same as establishing an official religion.

He thought the majority's historical discussion of the English established church and colonial establishments did not resolve the actual issue. Those examples involved state churches and coercive systems of religious conformity, whereas this case involved students who wished to participate in a brief voluntary prayer at the start of school.

Stewart rejected reliance on the metaphor of a “wall of separation,” which does not appear in the Constitution. He instead stressed the Nation's longstanding religious traditions, including prayers opening sessions of Congress and the Supreme Court, presidential invocations of divine aid, the national motto, the National Day of Prayer, and references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and national anthem.

For Stewart, these practices reflected governmental recognition of the country's spiritual heritage, not an unconstitutional establishment. He saw no principled basis for treating official prayers by judges, legislators, or presidents as permissible while denying schoolchildren the opportunity to join voluntarily in a comparable prayer.