This question asks about US Supreme Court cases involving organized religion and prayer in the public schools, a practice the Court has held is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, which holds the government cannot promote religion. Public schools are considered government agents because they receive federal funds; therefore, they are bound by the same constitutional limitations as the state and federal governments. Private schools that do not receive money from the US government are under no such restriction and can conduct organized prayer without fear of intervention.
It is important to note these Supreme Court decisions relate only to organized prayer in public schools. Individuals are free to pray privately, but not to impose their religious beliefs or the exercise of any religion on others.
The Supreme Court made their position clearer in Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995) when they wrote: "...private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." The key word in this statement is private.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Engel v. Vitale (1962) was the first US Supreme Court case that held organized prayer in public school is a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from promoting or establishing religion. The Court held that a New York school district's policy requiring students to recite a prayer at the beginning of each day violated some students religious traditions. They ruled the New York state law that allowed school districts to create this policy was unconstitutional.
Case Citation:
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
During the 1963 Term, the Court attempted to clarify the Engel v. Vitale, (1962) decision by tackling another case regarding school prayer, Abington Township v. Schempp, (1963), in order to address 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. They explained that the Establishment Clause applied to the states under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Case Citation:
Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963)
The Supreme Court heard a similar case, Wallace v. Jaffree, in 1985, in which Alabama law permitted public school teachers to lead prayer sessions and teach religion during the school day. In a 6-3 decision, the Court determined the state law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment Establishment Clause.
Case Citation:
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 US 38 (1985)
In Lee v. Weisman, the Supreme Court specifically ruled clergy-lead prayer at public school events is a violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause because public schools are government agents bound by the constitutional prohibition against imposing religion on a secular audience. Private schools are free to incorporate prayer into their activities.
The Court held that "The school's rule creates subtle and indirect coercion (students must stand respectfully and silently), forcing students to act in ways which establish a state religion. The cornerstone principle of the Establishment Clause is that government may not compose official prayers to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government."
Case Citation:
Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577 (1992)
The Supreme Court addressed one school district's attempt to circumvent the decision in Lee v. Weisman, (1992) in their decision for Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, (2000), when the Court held the Santa Fe's policy of allowing student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games also violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause.
In the opinion of the Court, the school district was violating the Establishment Clause by actively endorsing the single viewpoint of the majority and ensuring the minority views would be effectively silenced. This practice was not only a violation of the Establishment Clause, but also infringed on the rights of others, particularly cheerleaders, football players, and band members whose attendance was mandatory, who might hold different (or no) religious views. Justice Stevens wrote: "The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between attending these games and avoiding personally offensive religious rituals."
Case Citation:
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 US 290 (2000)
You can read more about these Supreme Court cases by accessing Related Questions, below.
Two clauses of the first amendment concern the relationship of government to religion. There is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The clauses were intended to serve common values. The establishment clause purpose was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially support a national religion. The Supreme Court interpretation of the establishment clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of education. Voting 5 to 4 the court upheld a state law that reimburses parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools. If the state had reimbursed the parochial schools for the cost of transportation it would violate the establishment clause. Another case was a school sponsored prayer starting the school day in New York schools violated the establishment clause.
In cases involving ambassadors, it is the Supreme Court of the United States that has original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court was formed in 1789.
No. Slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in a joint effort between Congress and the states that ratified the amendment. A constitutional amendment is more powerful than a US Supreme Court decision, because it is not subject to change by the Supreme Court.
Yes, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1987 (Edwards vs. Aguillard), creationism cannot be taught in public schools as doing so would violate the US constitution.
The 4th, 5th, and the 14th as well as the Miranda decision by the Supreme Court.
snapchat @itsivana163
Everson v. Board of Education
23
There is not just one Supreme Court case on this; there is a whole body of jurisprudence on interpreting the "Establishment Clause" in First Amendment of the US Constitution.
that would be supreme court because it deals with the 8th amendment to the constitution
Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion. There is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The clauses were intended to serve common values. The establishment clause purpose was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially support a national religion. The Supreme Court interpretation of the establishment clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of education. Voting 5 to 4 the court upheld a state law that reimburses parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools. If the state had reimbursed the parochial schools for the cost of transportation it would violate the establishment clause. Another case was a school sponsored prayer starting the school day in New York schools violated the establishment clause.
There is no thu amendment.
Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion. There is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The clauses were intended to serve common values. The establishment clause purpose was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially support a national religion. The Supreme Court interpretation of the establishment clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of education. Voting 5 to 4 the court upheld a state law that reimburses parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools. If the state had reimbursed the parochial schools for the cost of transportation it would violate the establishment clause. Another case was a school sponsored prayer starting the school day in New York schools violated the establishment clause.
Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion. There is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The clauses were intended to serve common values. The establishment clause purpose was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially support a national religion. The Supreme Court interpretation of the establishment clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of education. Voting 5 to 4 the court upheld a state law that reimburses parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools. If the state had reimbursed the parochial schools for the cost of transportation it would violate the establishment clause. Another case was a school sponsored prayer starting the school day in New York schools violated the establishment clause.
Two clauses of the first amendment concern the relationship of government to religion. There is the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The clauses were intended to serve common values. The establishment clause purpose was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially support a national religion. The Supreme Court interpretation of the establishment clause does not begin until 1947 in Everson v Board of education. Voting 5 to 4 the court upheld a state law that reimburses parents for the cost of busing their children to parochial schools. If the state had reimbursed the parochial schools for the cost of transportation it would violate the establishment clause. Another case was a school sponsored prayer starting the school day in New York schools violated the establishment clause.
ninth amendment
indivual rights must be balanced against the needs of soceity at the time