| Abington Township School District v. Schempp |
|
Supreme Court of the United States |
Argued February 27 – 28, 1963
Decided June 17, 1963
|
| Full case name: |
School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, et al. v. Schempp et al. |
|
| Citations: |
374 U.S. 203; 83 S. Ct. 1560; 10 L. Ed. 2d 844; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2611 |
|
|
| Prior history: |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
|
|
|
|
| Holding |
| The Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared sanctioned organized Bible reading in
public schools in the United States to be
unconstitutional. |
| Court membership |
Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Associate Justices: Hugo Black, William O.
Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John Marshall
Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Potter
Stewart, Byron White, Arthur Joseph
Goldberg |
| Case opinions |
Majority by: Clark
Joined by: Warren, Black, White, Douglas, Goldberg, Harlan, Brennan
Concurrence by: Douglas
Concurrence by: Brennan
Concurrence by: Goldberg
Joined by: Harlan
Dissent by: Stewart
|
| Laws applied |
| U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV |
Abington Township School District v. Schempp (consolidated with Murray v. Curlett),
374 U.S. 203 (1963),[1] was a United States Supreme
Court case argued on February 27–28,
1963 and decided on June 17, 1963.
In the case, the Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school sponsored Bible reading in
public schools in the United States to be
unconstitutional. The case was part of a string of Supreme Court cases ruling on the place of religion in public schools, and was
both condemned by religious conservatives and celebrated by those who supported constitutional separation of church and state.
Background
Origin of case
The Abington case began when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian and a resident of
Abington Township, Pennsylvania, filed suit against
the Abington Township School District in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prohibit the
enforcement of a Pennsylvania state law that required his children, specifically Ellery
Schempp, to hear and sometimes read portions of the Bible as part of their public school education. That law (24 Pa. Stat. 15-1516, as amended,
Pub. Law 1928) required that "[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public
school on each school day." Schempp specifically contended that the statute violated his and his family's rights under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments.[2]
When it was brought, this case illustrated for Americans the metamorphosis their society was undergoing. Although many must
have disagreed with local school districts conducting organized prayers and Bible readings, only a small minority vocally
expressed objection to the statutes mandating those activities. Most U.S. citizens believed that the United States was a nation
founded on Christian principles. Yet, in spite of their widely held beliefs, as early as
1890, many states were rolling back mandates of state sponsored devotional exercises in the
classroom (Boston, 1993, p. 105).
Like four other states, Pennsylvania law included a statute compelling school districts to
perform Bible readings in the mornings before class. Twenty-five states had laws allowing "optional" Bible reading, with the
remainder having no laws supporting or rejecting Bible reading. In eleven of those states with laws supportive of Bible reading
or state-sponsored prayer, courts had declared them unconstitutional (Boston, 1993, p. 101).
More famous than Schempp was the plaintiff in Murray v. Curlett, the son of Madalyn
Murray O'Hair, who founded the group American Atheists in 1963.
The district court arguments
During the first District Court trial, Edward Schempp and his children testified as to specific religious doctrines purveyed
by a literal reading of the Bible "which were contrary to the religious beliefs which they held and to their familial teaching"
(177 F. Supp. 398, 400). The children testified that all of the doctrines to which they referred were read to them at various
times as part of the exercises. Edward Schempp testified at the second trial that he had considered having his children excused
from attendance at the exercises but decided against it for several reasons, including his belief that the children's
relationships with their teachers and classmates would be adversely affected.
The district court ruling
The district court ruled in Schempp's favor, and struck down the Pennsylvania statute. The school district appealed the
ruling, and while that appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania legislature amended the statute to allow children to be excused from
the exercises upon the written request of their parents. This change did not satisfy Schempp, however, and he continued his
action against the school district, charging that the amendment of the law did not change its nature as an unconstitutional
establishment of religion. (Due to the change in the law, the Supreme Court had responded to the school district's appeal by
vacating the first ruling and remanding the case back to the district court.) The district court again found for Schempp. The
school district appealed to the Supreme Court again, and, on appeal, the case was consolidated
with a similar Maryland case launched by Madalyn
Murray (Boston, 1993, p. 106).
The district court ruling in the second trial, in striking down the practices and the statute requiring them, made specific
findings of fact that the children's attendance at Abington Senior High School was compulsory and that the practice of reading 10
verses from the Bible was also compelled by law. It also found that:
The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a
religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that
the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the Lord's
Prayer. The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not
mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony for . . . Section 1516 . . . unequivocally requires the exercises to be held every
school day in every school in the Commonwealth. The exercises are held in the school buildings and perforce are conducted by and
under the authority of the local school authorities and during school sessions. Since the statute requires the reading of the
'Holy Bible,' a Christian document, the practice . . . prefers the Christian religion. The record demonstrates that it was the
intention of . . . the Commonwealth . . . to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth. (201 F.
Supp., at 819; quoted in 374 U.S. 203 (1963))
Precedents for case
SCKITANOR explicitly upheld Engel v. Vitale, in which the Court
ruled that the sanctioning of a prayer by the school amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion". The Abington court held that in organizing a reading of the Bible, the school was conducting
"a religious exercise", and "that cannot be done without violating the 'neutrality' required of the State by the balance of power
between individual, church and state that has been struck by the First Amendment" (374 U.S. 203 (1963)). Over the previous two decades, the Supreme Court, by incorporating specific rights into the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, had
steadily increased the extent to which rights contained in United States Bill of
Rights were applied against the states.[3]
Abington was a continuation of this trend with regard to the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment, and
specifically built upon Supreme Court precedents in Cantwell v.
Connecticut (310 U.S. 296 (1940)), Everson v. Board of
Education (330 U.S. 1 (1947)), and McCollum v. Board of
Education (333 U.S. 203 (1948)).
Opinions
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to settle the persistent and vigorous protests resulting from its previous
decision in Engel v. Vitale regarding religion in schools (White & Zimmerman,
p. 70).
The decision
Clark continued that the Court was of the feeling that no matter the religious nature of the citizenry, the government at all
levels, as required by the Constitution, must remain neutral in matters of religion "while protecting all, prefer[ring] none, and
disparag[ing] none". The Court had clearly rejected the contention by many that the Establishment Clause forbade only governmental preference of one faith over
another (Eastland, 1993, p. 59).
Citing Justice Hugo Black in Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Clark added, "We repeat
and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion'". Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against
non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded
on different beliefs". Such prohibited behavior was that self-evident in the Pennsylvania law requiring Bible reading (and
allowing recitation of the Lord's Prayer) in its public schools. The Court recognized the value of such ideal neutrality from
lessons of history when government and religion were either fully fused or cooperative with one another and religious liberty was
nonexistent or seriously curtailed.
William J. Brennan's concurrence
Justice Brennan filed the only lengthy and truly historically significant concurrence in
this case. The Justice took seventy-three pages to elaborate his ideas about what the Framers intended in the formation of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments, gauging the value of religion in our culture, reviewing past precedents, and suggesting a course for future church-state cases. Brennan
felt the need to focus on the history of the Establishment Clause to counter numerous critics of the Court's Engel decision, who
pointed out that prayer in public schools, as well as in many other areas of public life, was a longstanding practice going back
to the framing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He professed to be aware of the "ambiguities in the historical record" and
felt a modern-day interpretation of the First Amendment was warranted (Davis, 1991, p. 77). In defense of that approach, Brennan
stated:
Whatever Jefferson or Madison would have
thought of Bible reading or the recital of the Lord's Prayer in ... public schools ..., our use of the history ... must limit
itself to broad purposes, not specific practices. ... [T]he Baltimore and Abington schools offend the First Amendment because
they sufficiently threaten in our day those substantive evils the fear of which called forth the Establishment Clause. ... [O]ur interpretation of the First Amendment must
necessarily be responsive to the much more highly charged nature of religious questions in contemporary society. A too literal
quest for the advice of the Founding Fathers upon the issues of these cases seems to me futile and misdirected
In answer to critics of a broad interpretation of the prohibitions against government in the realm of religion, Brennan said,
"nothing in the text of the Establishment Clause supports the view that the prevention of the setting up of an official church
was meant to be the full extent of the prohibitions against official involvements in religion".
In the third section of his exhaustive concurrence, Justice Brennan charted the course that led to the incorporation of the
First Amendment's religion clauses by way of answering the charge of Abington Township's counsel that Pennsylvania's Bible
reading statute was a state issue, outside the purview of the federal court system, including that of the Supreme Court. He
labeled the daily recitals of the Lord's Prayer and reading of the Bible as "quite [clear] breaches of the command of the
Establishment Clause". He noted the long history of such practices, even before the "founding of our Republic". Additionally, he did not neglect to mention that most of those who demanded reading of the Bible and
prayer in schools were hoping to serve "broader goals than compelling formal worship of God or
fostering church attendance". He cited the 1858 words of the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction, who saw the Bible as
aptly suited to "teaching the noblest principles of virtue, morality, patriotism, and good order".
Justice Brennan took great pains to also show that many states, such as South Dakota,
New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio and Massachusetts, had already enacted and revoked laws similar to
Pennsylvania's by the first half of the twentieth century. In addition, many political
leaders including attorneys general and presidents like Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt insisted that
"matters of religion be left to family altars, churches and private schools" and "[It] is not our
business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or
the Talmud read in [public] schools" (though such statements on the part of Grant must be viewed
on the backdrop of Grant's virulent anti-Catholicism, a spirit which drove many of the anti-Catholic 19th century Republican
Party to champion laws sharply curbing public financing of religious practices out of fear of state financing of Catholic
schools).
Brennan's concurrence also recognized the plurality of religious thought in the nation as basis enough for restriction of
church and state relations. He cited this lack of appreciation of that pluralism as
the "basic flaw" of Pennsylvania's Bible reading statute and Abington Township's defense of it:
There are persons in every community—often deeply devout—to whom any version of the Judaeo-Christian Bible is offensive. There
are others whose reverence for the Holy Scriptures demands private study or reflection and to whom public reading or recitation
is sacrilegious.... To such persons it is not the fact of using the Bible in the public schools, nor the content of any
particular version, that is offensive, but the manner in which it is used.
Potter Stewart's dissent
Justice Potter Stewart filed the only dissent in the case. In it, he was critical of both the lower court opinions and the decision the Supreme Court had reached regarding them. He wished to remand the
case to lower courts for further proceedings.
Stewart had dissented in Engel v. Vitale and viewed the doctrine relied on in that case as implausible, given the long
history of government religious practice in the United States, including the fact that the Supreme Court opens its own sessions
with the declaration, "God Save this Honorable Court" and that Congress opens its sessions with prayers, among many other
examples. Stewart believed that such practice fit with the nation's long history of permitting free exercise of religious
practices, even in the public sphere.
He declared the cases consolidated with Schempp as "so fundamentally deficient as to make impossible an informed or
responsible determination of the constitutional issues presented"—specifically, of whether the Establishment Clause was violated.
As to the intent and scope of the religion clauses of the First Amendment:
It is, I think, a fallacious oversimplification to regard the [religion clauses] as establishing a single constitutional
standard of "separation of church and state", which can be applied in every case to delineate the required boundaries between
government and religion.... As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created
National Government. The events leading to its adoption strongly suggest that the Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt
to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with
existing state establishments. ... So matters stood until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, or more accurately, until
this Court's decision in Cantwell....
He stated his agreement with the doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment's embrace and application of the Bill of Rights, but
pointed out the irony of such an amendment "designed to leave the States free to go their own way should now have become a
restriction upon their autonomy" (Eastland, 1993, pp. 165).
Other critics of the Court's findings in Abington v. Schempp often quote the following excerpt from Justice Stewart's
opinion:
If religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed in an artificial and
state-created disadvantage.... And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state
neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at least, as
governmental support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private (Eastland,
1993, pp. 165).
Backlash
The public was divided in reaction to the Court's decision; the decision has sparked persistent and ongoing criticism from
proponents of prayer in school. In 1964, Life magazine declared Madalyn Murray
O'Hair, the mother of the plaintiff in one of the cases, "the most hated woman in America." [1]
Newspapers were no exception. The Washington Evening
Star, for example, criticized the decision, declaring that "God and religion have all but been driven from the public
schools. What remains? Will the baccalaureate service and Christmas carols be the next to go? Don't bet against it." (Eastland, 1993, pp. 165). In contrast, the
New York Times was more accepting of the Court's ruling. The paper printed
significant portions of the opinions with no significant comments, either supportive or critical (Lewis, 1963, p. 16).
The views of various religious entities on the decision split between mainline Protestants and Jews, who in general strongly
supported the decision, and evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics, who strongly opposed the decision. Speaking from
the conservative Protestant perspective, the Reverend
Dr. Billy Graham said, "[i]n my opinion ... the Supreme Court ... is wrong. ... Eighty
percent of the American people want Bible reading and prayer in the schools. Why should a majority be so severely penalized ...?"
(New York Times, 1963, p. 17). The mainline denominations, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, registered less critical opinions of the verdict, in fact seeing it as a
boon to religious freedom by its very limiting of governmental authority in the sphere of public schools (Dugan, 1963, p. 18).
However, a majority of fundamentalist Christians today regard this decision as the one which
"kicked God and prayer out of the schools" (McWilliams, 1993, p.
170)....
Subsequent history
The United States Congress reacted swiftly; by April 1964, over 150 resolutions to overturn the
decision by amending the Constitution had been proposed (O'Hair, 1974, p. 55). Calls continue today, mostly from conservative
Republican and Religious Right activists, for an amendment to the Constitution to allow students to pray or read the Bible. This
springs from the belief, on the part of school districts, parents, and concerned religious groups, that Abington v.
Schempp prohibited such activity, when it actually restrained the government from interfering either to promote or prohibit
such activity (Boston, 1993, p. 227).
Abington v. Schempp was used as precedent for similar cases like Board of Education v.
Allen and Lemon v. Kurtzman in the decades that followed. The three part Lemon test had its basis in the jurisprudence of Abington v.
Schempp. Under the test, a given church-state law is subjected to three criteria: sponsorship, financial support, and active
involvement of the government in religious activity. Failure in any one of those realms allow the measure to be declared
unconstitutional.
See also
References
- ^ 374 U.S. 203 (Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com)
- ^ Abington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett
374 U.S. 203 (1963).
- ^ The process of incorporation, or nationalization as it is also known, of the United States Bill of
Rights began with cases (164 U.S. 403 (1896) and 166 U.S. 226 (1897)) pitting the railroads against the government over just compensation for the taking of
private property, due all persons (and corporations) under the Fifth Amendment. Next was First Amendment Freedom of Speech, in
Fiske v. Kansas 274 U.S. 380 (1927). Freedom of Religion was first incorporated (albeit in dictum) in Hamilton v. Regents
of the University of California 293 U.S. 245 (1934), and made official in Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Finally in Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the court ruled that a state could not write or sanction an official prayer to be read by
students at school. For a more detailed history of Incorporation, see Incorporation (Bill of Rights).
- Billy Graham voices shock over decision. (18 June 1963).
New York Times. p. 17.
- Boston, Robert. (1993). Why the religious right is wrong: About separation of church and state. (1st ed.). Buffalo:
Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-834-1
- Davis, Derek. (1991). Original Intent: Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Course of American Church-State Relations.
Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
- Dugan, George. (18 June 1963). Churches divided, with most in
favor. New York Times, p. 18.
- Eastland, Terry, ed. (1993). Religious Liberty in the Supreme Court. Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center.
- O'Hair, Madalyn Murray. (1974). Freedom Under Siege. Los Angeles: J.P.
Tarcher, Inc.
- Lewis, Anthony. (18 June 1963). Government must be neutral in
religion, majority asserts. New York Times. p. 16.
- Licciardello, Carman. (1994). Raising the Standard: Reclaiming Our World for God. Nashville: Sparrow Press.
- McWilliams, Peter. (1993). Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society.
(1st ed.). Los Angeles: Prelude Press. ISBN 0-931580-53-6
- White, Ronald C. & Zimmerman, Albright G. (Eds.). (1990). An Unsettled Arena: Religion and the Bill of Rights.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. ISBN 0-8028-0465-9
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
