Final
Project: Legal Analysis Research Paper
Jessica
Cowand
Southern
New Hampshire University
POL-328
Professor
Kristine Tsahiridis
October
20, 2024
The
case of Engel v. Vitale (1962) began in New York in 1951 when the New York
Board of Regents of the Department of Education in the state of New York
proposed that public schools should be authorized, not required, to start the
day with a non-denominational prayer (Engel v. Vidal, n.d.). Superintendent
William J. Vitale Jr., who oversaw Herricks Union Free School District in 1958
adopted the proposal (Engel V. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), n.d.). Five
Harrick’s parents, however, felt that having a prayer was against the
Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution. In that clause, the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof” (The White House, 2021). And they argued that the protections
offered to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment which discusses the concept
of Equal Protection of the Law was their reason for suing the superintendent
regarding prayer in school (The White House, 2021). Of the five parents, two
were Jewish, one was a Unitarian, one was an Atheist, and the last one was a
member of the New York Society for Ethical Culture.
At
this point in U.S. history religion was still a part of the predominantly white
American culture. Most leaders in the country, including judges,
presupposed that religion was a daily habit in most people’s lives. The very
concept of prayer in public schools where the children are representative of
their individual families' beliefs underscores the reason the parents in the
suit were upset. One family believed in no higher being or the concept of
heaven and hell and, understandably, they did not want their child
exposed to religion every day in their neighborhood school. As for the Jewish
parents, while they did believe in a higher being, Jewish worship is vastly
different from Christianity, so it is understandable that they too felt that
their rights to practice their own religion without interference from the local
school for their children were violated. The concept of individual rights is a
foundational principle found in our constitution. For one group, even if they
are a majority of the country, to decide for a country, one filled with so much
diversity of culture and religious practices, to make their religion the common
public religion over all the other beliefs is the epitome of a violation of
individual rights. The impact of this case would be tremendous to a
predominantly white Christian nation who felt their religion and common
practices were the norm and therefore a basic Christian prayer was good for all.
The idea that parents of public school kids would try to prevent school prayer
was a shocking anathema to the country at large. Even though the country itself
was going through major social change, becoming more secular, and moving away
from established rules and conventions of the time. However, the Equal Protection
Clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, states very
clearly that any American citizen is guaranteed equal protection of the law
governing their individual rights (14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Civil Rights (1868), 2024). This equal protection clause means that the
statement regarding Congress not establishing any one religion as found in the
First Amendment of the United States will be protected for all American
citizens as well (The White House, 2021).
Engel
v. Vitale (1962) began in a trial court in the New York Supreme Court located
in Nassau County, New York in 1959. In New York, the trial courts are called
Supreme Courts and are considered trial courts of general jurisdiction, which
means they hear both civil and criminal cases. The reason the case went to the
Nassau County Supreme Court is because the case begins in public schools
located in New Hyde Park, which is located within the boundaries of Nassau
County New York. The plaintiff in the case was named Steven Engel, because
there were so many parents the case was named Engel et al. They argued that the
requirement of prayer in public school was a violation of their First
Amendment rights in the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The defendant
was the Superintendent, William J. Vitale Jr, who is responsible for agreeing
with the New York Board of Regents approval of a daily prayer in schools and
then requiring all students in his district to comply (Engel V. Vitale, 370
U.S. 421 (1962), n.d.).
The
case was overseen by Judge Bernard S. Meyer of Nassau County, who ruled in
favor of the defendant (Vitale) citing that at the time the First and Fourteenth Amendments were written public prayer was an accepted practice,
although Judge Meyer did require that the schools allow for an opt-out clause
for parents to sign if they did not want their children to participate
(Kurland, 1962). This meant that the defendant was within his rights to ask the
children to recite the Regent’s Prayer. Judge Meyer also relied on the
precedent set in 1952 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Zorach v. Clauson (1952)
where the Supreme Court ruled it was okay for children to leave school for
off-site religious instruction during the day (Zorach v. Clauson, n.d.).
Following
the path set in New York for the way court cases are heard and appealed after
the plaintiff lost in the trial court they appealed to the New York Supreme
Court appellate division in 1960, and the ruling from Judge Meyer was upheld by
the majority of the Appellate Division for the Second Department, Justices
Nolan, Christ, Pette, and Brenna oversaw this first appeal. They agreed and
upheld Judge Meyer’s original ruling. One judge quasi-disagreed with the per
curium opinion, Judge George Beldock wrote a concurring opinion disagreeing
with the use of Zurach v. Clauson as the precedent but instead citing the case
of Holy Trinity v. United States (1892), that the United States is a religious
nation, not a particular religion but religious in general (Kurland, 1962).
When
the case came before the Court of Appeals in 1961, which was the next step in
the New York trial pathway, it received a variety of opinions from several
judges. The 3-2 decision of the Court of Appeals in favor of the defendant
would offer further opinions on the separation of church and state and the
assumed belief in the U.S. as a religious country by natural law. Judge Desmond
felt freedom of religion did not apply because of the language change that allowed
children to be opted out by signature of the parents, which takes out the idea
of prayer being forced upon all the children. His opinion was that it should
stand because it should be considered under natural law. Because it is a
universally accepted tradition of the U.S. from the founding fathers to
President Kennedy’s inauguration. Two judges agreed with Judge Desmond, Judges
Froessel and Burke. And two judges dissented, Judge Dye wrote the dissenting
opinion with concurrence by Judge Fuld. While Judge Dye agreed we were a
religious people, he felt that the protections of the First Amendment are what
has made it so that the religiosity of the U.S. stands, and therefore a public
school should not have prayer of any kind in school (Kurland, 1962).
After
the plaintiffs exhausted the trial path in the state of New York, they were left
with no recourse but to appeal to the federal court system. So they appealed to
the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and heard the case on
April 3, 1962. The opinion of the Court would be released on June 25, 1962. The
Court found in favor of the plaintiff (the parents) that the state cannot hold
prayers in public schools, even if it is not for a specified religion or if the
school allows for opt-out signatures. The Supreme Court released its ruling
in June 1962, they found 6-1 in favor of the plaintiff, who was listed as
Steven Engel, one of the Jewish parents. Justice Hugo Black was the one who
wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated that the “policy breached the
Constitutional Wall of separation between church and state”, and that just because
parents could opt out was not enough of a separation, the state cannot say it
will not establish a religion and since the school is a part of the state it
cannot then make citizens pray to one God, even if it is non-denominational (Engel
V. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), n.d.)
Justice
Black also wrote that the Court found that the state of New York, represented
by the state Board of Regents, a legislative body regarding public schools in
the state, was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution of
the United States by not only encouraging a prayer in the public school system
but also having written the prayer themselves. He pointed out that the prayer,
“is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the
Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious,” (Engel V.
Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), n.d.). He added that Thomas Jefferson himself
recognized the religiosity of prayer. The Court agreed with the petitioners
that the state of New York and Vitale’s use of prayer in public schools broke
the wall separating church and state embodied in the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment in the Constitution. In Justice Black’s opinion, he
reiterated the reason the Establishment Clause was the First Amendment; by
pointing to the history of the religious monarchy we had fought against to
establish this country.
The
Majority included Justices Black, Warren, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, and Brennan,
with Black writing the majority opinion. Justice Douglas wrote the concurring
opinion that the state financing a religious exercise is in violation of the
First Amendment and Justice Stewart, alone, wrote the dissenting opinion
stating that though prayer had been required by the superintendent no specific
religion was mentioned and therefore there was no violation, which completely
disregards the concept that Judaism is a vastly different religious practice
than Christianity and that not all of the families even believe in a higher
power (Engel v. Vitale. n.d.). The majority rule of the Federal Supreme
Court is the final decision, there is no other court above the United States
Supreme Court, this case set a precedent that caused uproar across the country
from state and federal leaders and from the general population. For the first
time the United States created a line of separation between church and state
and future court cases would be based on this decision. There were other
attempts throughout the twentieth century to put religion back in public
spaces, including schools, but Engel v. Vitale (1962) set a precedent that has
stood as law for over sixty years. The separation of church and state is not
officially mentioned in the Constitution. However, one of its authors, Thomas
Jefferson, once wrote to the Danbury Baptists his belief that religion is a
private matter between man and his God, that he does not owe any explanation on
how, who, or if he worships. He also argued that the legislature should
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof," (Separation of Church & State History (U.S.
National Park Service), n.d.). The case of Engel v. Vitale (1962) was
finally decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in July of 1962. The
resolute decision of the final Court was issued by Justice Black, in his
opinion
America’s reaction to the Engel v. Vitale (1962) ruling
was demonstrably disapproving of the Court’s decision. There were
letter-writing campaigns, picketing, and members of the Republican and Southern
Democratic parties in Congress decried the ruling and contemplated a school
prayer amendment in 1964, it failed to garner any real momentum, but it was a
direct result of the Court’s ruling (Engel V. Vitale (1962), n.d.). It
is important to remember that the separation of church and state stands because
America truly is a melting pot of diverse cultures and beliefs. With the First
Amendment, the framers set a foundation for a country different from the one
from which they had all come, one that had an established religion that had a
history of persecution of religions other than its established Church of
England. They wanted to make sure to protect this country from becoming a
theocracy or a monarchy and an established religion would weaken that stance of
freedom of religion.
As mentioned earlier in 1802, Thomas Jefferson, while he
was president, wrote several letters to the Danbury Baptists, in one letter
Jefferson spoke of the importance of the separation of church and state.
Stating simply that religion is between man and his God alone. He added, “I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus
building a wall of separation between Church & State” (Separation of
Church & State History (U.S. National Park Service), n.d.). It is this
presidential belief that helped to form my opinion on the importance of the
separation of church and state coupled with what I know of our ancestors' fight
to escape religious persecution from a tyrannical England that I agree with the
ruling of the Court on this case. A legislative body writing a prayer and then
encouraging all of the public schools that belong to that state to participate
in the reciting of said prayer is indeed in violation of that important
separation. The constitution does not specifically say that church and state
must be separated, it is however, the very embodiment of the Establishment
Clause of this country and is rooted in the past of our people. The Court’s
ruling, using the process of judicial review set a precedent that was past due
in a country where the people view their freedoms as intrinsically American as
apple pie. There was no precedent upon which this case was decided, instead, it
set the precedent. It was controversial and caused an uproar, thus demonstrating
that the Court exemplified judicial activism in this opinion. In a scholarly
article written by Phillip Kurland, he concludes that “Vitale may come to be
recognized as one of the bulwarks of America's freedom from the ills that
continue to plague those countries where "toleration" rather than
"freedom" and "separation" are the guides to government
action” (1962).
This
precedent came at a time when America was undergoing a lot of growing pains.
People were pushing against racism, sexism, and religion in general. More and
more immigrants continued to come to the U.S. to grasp their own part of the
American dream. Because of precedents like this one, as well as the passage of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the power of the predominantly white Christian
hold on this country began to be softened, and the U.S. started to realize more
equality than it had ever before experienced. But the plaintiffs during the
trial and its immediate aftermath had to endure a great deal of antisemitism
for fighting against school prayer. It gave Jewish parents in Southern states
the precedent they needed to fight for their rights of religious freedom for
their children in school, and case after case the plaintiffs were able to fight
to determine their family’s religious practices in the home and in their own
religious institutions rather than in the public school system (Schneider,
2008). Antisemitism was an uphill battle for members of the Jewish faith as
they fought to remove Christian principles like prayer in schools to ensure the
neutrality of the government regarding religiosity. Antisemitism would begin to
dissipate from the country, and acceptance took its place. Willingness to reach
across religious lines and cultural lines spread across the country. Of course, there were still people full of hate and antisemitism, racism, and cruelty in
the country and the world, but their hatred was being forced from the
zeitgeist. We still have a long way to go but there are more and more
representations in our leadership of the diverse cultural backgrounds of the
American populace than ever before. It was the first real foot in the door of
real social change, of acceptance to those who believed, looked, and spoke
differently.
Today however, Christian Nationalists are on the rise with groups like the Federalist Society, and their behind-the-scenes machinations to help the Trump presidency to pack the Supreme Court and other federal courts with staunch hardline conservatives (Gass, 2024). The Supreme Court for the first time in almost 90 years is the most conservative it has ever been. Where they are slowly eroding the more liberal judicial activism that the Court employed throughout the Twentieth Century. Overturning precedents that have stood for over 60 years and pitting the Establishment Clause against the Free Exercise Clause when it comes to state education funds helping to pay tuition to private religious schools in the state of Maine in the case of Carson v. Makin (2024). Signaling that the conservative majority of the Court is now determined to undermine all the progress that America has made by undoing monumental cases like Carson v. Makin (2024) and beyond. Overturning Roe with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2021) or extending presidential immunity to the executive branch upsetting the balance of the three branches in the process in Trump v. United States (2024). The question of the separation of church and state is relevant today because for the first time in over 60 years, it is once again under threat.
*Note:
Some of the links below will not work because you have to have access through Southern New Hampshire University as a student or faculty/teacher. But you can try to look up the papers for yourself by Googling their titles, some may still require access through a university or via payment to that online library.
References:
14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868).
(2024, March 6). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment
After
momentous term, Supreme Court cements Federalist Society vision as law. (2024,
July 8). Christian Science Monitor, NA. https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/apps/doc/A800688373/OVIC?u=nhc_main&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=3244473c
Carson
v. Makin. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 20, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1088
Engel
v. Vitale (1962). (n.d.-b). LII / Legal Information
Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/engel_v._vitale_(1962)#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20the%20American%20public's%20reaction,began%20with%20a%20classified%20ad.
Engel
v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). (n.d.). Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/370/421/
Engel
v. Vitale. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved September 15,
2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468
Ford,
M. (2024). The Separation of Church and State Had a Very Bad Day at the Supreme
Court. In Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Gale.
(Reprinted from The Separation of Church and State Had a Very Bad Day at the
Supreme Court, The New Republic, 2022, June 21) https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/apps/doc/IACGNK785866961/OVIC?u=nhc_main&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=28ba7842
Kurland,
P. B. (1962). The Regents’ Prayer Case: “Full of Sound and Fury,
Signifying...” The Supreme Court Review, 1962, 1–33.
Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.3108791&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=shapiro
Schneider,
R. G. (2008). God, Schools, and Country - The Battle over School Prayer: How
Engel v. Vitale Changed America. Human Rights Quarterly, 30(Issue
3), 797–807. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1353/hrq.0.0011 https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.hurq30.47&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=shapiro
Separation
of church & state history (U.S. National Park Service).
(n.d.-b). https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/church_state_historical.htm
Team,
E. (2024, July 2). Engel v. Vitale (1962). The Free Speech Center. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/engel-v-vitale/#:~:text=The%20plaintiffs%20lost%20before%20the,establishment%20of%20an%20official%20religion.
The
White House. (2021, January 20). The Constitution | The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/
Trump
v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 20, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-939
Zorach
v. Clauson. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 20, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/343us306
Comments
Post a Comment