Abington Township v. Schempp involved a challenge to prayer in public schools as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court addressed the conflict between school prayer and the First Amendment Establishment Clause during the previous Term in Engel v. Vitale, (1962), but wanted to clarify some points that raised protests from certain members of the Christian public.
Specifically, the Supreme Court wanted to address concerns about their interpretation of the Establishment Clause prohibiting public schools from sponsoring prayer, because the decision departed from two hundred years of American tradition in which Christianity and public education were freely intermingled.
Some people objected to the Fourteenth Amendment applying the Establishment Clause to the states, and believed that the the First Amendment "forbade only governmental preference of one faith over another," but that the prohibition didn't extend to schools.
Justice William J. Brennan wrote an historically significant concurrence in Schempp that clearly explicated the religious traditions in American culture, the intention of the Founding Fathers when framing the Constitution, and the history and meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Brennan's opinion outlined the Supreme Court's reasoning in both Engle v. Vitale and Schempp, and helped lay the foundation for future decisions further separating church and state.
Case Citation:
Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Abington Township School District, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was the petitioner (plaintiff) when the case reached the Supreme Court because they were appealing the District Court decision favoring Schempp, and overturning a Pennsylvania statute requiring Bible reading in public schools.
The US Supreme Court affirmed the District Court ruling that the Pennsylvania statute was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Case Citation:
Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
it was ruled unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause, the ruling was 1 vote abington, 8 votes schempp.
dissenting
The US Supreme Court determines whether to hear a case according to the Rule of Four. If at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court agree, they will grant certiorari and hear the case.
No, i don't.
the court will accept a case if for of the nine Justices agree to do so
the court will accept a case if for of the nine Justices agree to do so
The justices of the US Supreme Court vote on each case that is brought before them. The decision of the court is whatever a majority of the justices agree on. Each justice has an equal say in the decision.
The US Supreme Court determines whether to hear a case according to the Rule of Four. If at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court agree, they will grant certiorari and hear the case.
US Supreme Court cases are initiated when a minimum of four justices agree to grant a petition for writ of certiorari.
For a majority ruling on the Supreme Court, a minimum of five out of the nine justices must agree. This is because a majority decision requires more than half of the justices to support a particular outcome or opinion. It is necessary to have a majority in order to establish a binding decision for the Court.
Just because the state doesn't agree, if the US Supreme Court renders a decision in your favor the state must comply! There is no higher court than the US Supreme Court - the state cannot file an appeal.
There are currently 9 Supreme Court Justices, so for there to be a majority ruling, 5 would have to rule a certain way.
Currently, there are nine Supreme Court justices on the United States Supreme Court. The number of justices is set by Congress and has varied from five to 10. There have been nine justices since 1869. In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt attempted to add six more justices to the Supreme Court. He felt the court was obstructing much of his New Deal policies and adding more members who would agree with his views would help. This was termed the "Court Packing Plan." However, Congress did not agree and so the number remains at nine.