Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1963

Abington School Dist. v. Schempp

374 U.S. 203 | 83 S. Ct. 1560 | 10 L. Ed. 2d 844 | 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2611

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, this case held that public schools may teach about religion, but they may not sponsor devotional Bible reading or prayer as part of the school day—even when students may opt out.

Background

Pennsylvania required every public school day to open with the reading of at least ten Bible verses, without comment. At Abington Senior High School, the reading was followed by a school-supervised, unison recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. A parent could request that a child be excused, but the Schempp family, who were Unitarians, did not seek an exemption because they feared their children would be stigmatized and would miss school announcements.

A three-judge federal district court held the Pennsylvania law unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause as incorporated against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court had previously remanded after Pennsylvania added the parental-excusal provision; on remand, the district court again invalidated the statute.

The companion Maryland case involved a Baltimore school-board rule requiring a Bible reading and/or the Lord’s Prayer at opening exercises. Madalyn Murray and her son, both atheists, challenged the practice. Maryland courts upheld the rule after sustaining the school board’s demurrer. The Supreme Court considered the two cases together.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment applies to state and local public-school practices through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding

Yes. The Establishment Clause fully applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed its settled incorporation doctrine. The Fourteenth Amendment makes state legislatures no more competent than Congress to enact laws respecting an establishment of religion, just as it protects the free exercise of religion against state infringement.

The Court also rejected the narrower view that the Establishment Clause forbids only a governmental preference for one religious denomination over another. The Clause bars government from establishing, aiding, or supporting religion generally as well as from preferring one faith over another.

Issue #2

What constitutional standard governs whether a government practice violates the Establishment Clause.

Holding

A law or practice violates the Establishment Clause if its purpose or primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion; it must have a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

Reasoning

The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses jointly require governmental neutrality toward believers and nonbelievers. Government may not use its power either to favor religion or to oppose it, because religious belief and worship are matters reserved to individual conscience and voluntary religious institutions.

The Court distinguished the clauses analytically. A Free Exercise claim ordinarily requires a showing that government coercively restrains religious practice, while an Establishment Clause violation does not depend on direct compulsion. Official state support for religious belief may itself create unconstitutional pressure on religious minorities and nonbelievers.

This neutrality principle reflects the historical judgment that political power and religious authority are both endangered when government becomes entangled with religious doctrine or worship. A majority may not use public institutions to conduct its preferred religious observances.

Issue #3

Whether state-required Bible reading and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer as part of the public-school day violate the Establishment Clause.

Holding

Yes. The Pennsylvania and Maryland practices were unconstitutional religious exercises conducted by the State in public schools.

Reasoning

The practices were devotional in character, not merely educational. The Pennsylvania program required the reading of Bible verses and followed it with a collective recitation of the Lord’s Prayer; the trial court properly found that the exercises were religious ceremonies. In Maryland, the religious character of the practice was effectively admitted by the allegations that the schools regularly read from the King James Bible.

The exercises occurred during the compulsory school day, in public-school buildings, under the authority and supervision of public-school officials and teachers. Those circumstances placed the power, prestige, and resources of the State behind religious observance, unlike a program that merely accommodates voluntary, off-campus religious activity.

The asserted secular objectives—moral instruction, resistance to materialism, preservation of institutions, and literary education—did not change the character of the exercises. Bible reading without comment and prayer were used as religious observances, rather than as objective instruction about literature, history, or comparative religion.

The Court stressed that the Bible and religion may constitutionally be studied when presented objectively as part of a secular educational program. Its decision prohibited state-sponsored devotional exercises, not academic teaching about religion or the Bible’s historical and literary importance.

Issue #4

Whether parental opt-out provisions save school-sponsored Bible reading and prayer from an Establishment Clause challenge.

Holding

No. The availability of an exemption does not cure the State’s establishment of a religious exercise.

Reasoning

The constitutional injury was the State’s prescription and conduct of a religious ceremony in public schools. That injury does not disappear because individual students may obtain permission not to attend or participate.

An exemption also does not eliminate the practical pressure created by a school-sponsored exercise. The Schempp parents reasonably feared that requesting exclusion would identify their children as outsiders before teachers and classmates, illustrating why nominal voluntariness does not negate the State’s religious sponsorship.

Concurrences

Justice Douglas

Reasoning

Justice Douglas agreed that the practices were unconstitutional but emphasized a second, independent establishment concern: public funds and facilities were being used to conduct religious exercises. Even a small expenditure is constitutionally significant when public resources are used to promote worship.

In his view, the Establishment Clause forbids the State not only from conducting religious exercises itself but also from strengthening churches through public support. Religious institutions must depend on voluntary support from their own adherents rather than governmental financing.

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan agreed that daily prayer and Bible reading in public schools were religious exercises forbidden by the Establishment Clause. He wrote at length to explain that constitutional interpretation should apply the Framers’ broad anti-establishment purposes to modern conditions, rather than seek a conclusive eighteenth-century answer to the precise practice at issue.

He emphasized changes in public education and religious diversity. Modern public schools are publicly financed institutions serving children of many faiths and no faith, and compulsory attendance makes official devotional exercises especially likely to create religious division and pressure on young students.

Brennan reasoned that the exercises could not be justified by their claimed secular benefits. If the objective depends on the religious impact of Bible reading and prayer, both the means and the end are religious; if the objective is truly secular, less sensitive secular alternatives can serve it. The State may not use religious means to attain secular ends when secular means suffice.

He further concluded that rotating Bible versions or calling the exercises nonsectarian could not resolve the constitutional problem. Scripture and prayer remain objectionable to persons of differing faiths, to nonbelievers, and to some believers who regard public devotional use as inappropriate.

Brennan also explained that an opt-out system is constitutionally inadequate. Beyond its irrelevance to establishment, requiring a child to seek an exemption can force a public profession of nonconformity and expose that child to peer pressure, stigma, and exclusion.

Finally, he cautioned that the decision did not demand governmental hostility toward religion. Government may accommodate free exercise in settings such as prisons and the military, where government control otherwise cuts people off from worship opportunities, and schools may teach about religion objectively without sponsoring worship.

Justice Goldberg

Reasoning

Justice Goldberg, joined by Justice Harlan, agreed that the prescribed Bible reading and prayer were plainly unconstitutional because the State used its schools, authority, and compulsory attendance structure to conduct devotional religious exercises for impressionable children.

He emphasized that neutrality does not mean a pervasive preference for secularism or hostility toward religion. Government may recognize religion’s place in American life and may make appropriate accommodations for religious exercise, but it may not directly and substantially involve itself in religious worship in a manner that risks favoritism, coercion, or division.

In Goldberg’s view, the decision reached only practices that realistically create the dangers the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent. It did not automatically invalidate every governmental reference to religion, religious accommodation, or ceremonial acknowledgment of belief in God.

Dissents

Justice Stewart

Reasoning

Justice Stewart dissented because he believed the records were too incomplete to support a responsible constitutional ruling. He would have remanded both cases for factual development about whether nonparticipating students faced actual official or social coercion despite the excusal provisions.

Stewart rejected a mechanical application of a single “separation of church and state” formula. In his view, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses sometimes pull in different directions, and constitutional neutrality requires careful accommodation of believers, nonbelievers, and those with differing religious commitments.

He viewed the school rules, if administered without coercion and with genuine local flexibility as to the readings, as possible accommodations of the free-exercise interests of parents who wished their children to encounter religious exercises at school. Refusing to permit any such exercise, he warned, could place religion at a state-created disadvantage within a compulsory educational system.

For Stewart, the decisive question was whether school officials structured the environment to pressure children to participate. An exercise held outside the regular school day or among equally attractive alternatives would present little risk of coercion; an in-school exercise without a meaningful excuse would be unconstitutional. But he would not presume coercion from the existing records without evidence of how the exemption systems actually operated.