What was the constitutional question in the case Engel v Vitale?

Answer 1

In Engel v. Vitale, Engel represented the parents of ten students who objected to a New York State public school policy that required students to recite a non-denominational prayer at the beginning of each school day.

The New York Board of Regents published the prayer in its handbook to the schools and a recommendation that it be adopted as part of students' "moral training." It allowed each school district to decide whether to incorporate the prayer. The Union Free School District No. 9, in New Hyde, New York, decided to make the prayer a mandatory exercise at the beginning of each school day.

Engel argued that the official prayer was contrary to their beliefs, religion and religious practices. They challenged the constitutionality of the state law authorize prayer in public schools, as well as their school district's decision to incorporate it into the daily routine on the grounds that the practice violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause. The school district was considered an official government agency because it was supported by federal taxes.

Engel further argued that the First Amendment prohibition was applicable to the State of New York via the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

First Amendment Establishment Clause

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Case Citation:

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Answer 2

The constitutional question posed to the US Supreme Court:

"Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?"

Case Citation:

Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962)

Answer 3

Justice Potter Stewart wrote a brief dissent to the majority opinion in Engel v. Vitale, disagreeing that the New York law established a religion according to his understanding of the First Amendment Establishment Clause:

"A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them and upon their parents, their teachers, and their country. The Court today decides that in permitting this brief nondenominational prayer the school board has violated the Constitution of the United States. I think this decision is wrong.

"The court does not hold, nor could it, that New York has interfered with the free exercise of anybody's religion. For the state courts have made clear that those who object to reciting the prayer must be entirely free of any compulsion to do so, including any "embarrassments and pressures." Cf. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624. But the Court says that in permitting school children to say this simple prayer, the New York authorities have established "an official religion."

"With al. respect, I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an "official religion" is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.

"The Court's historical review of the quarrels over the Book of Common Prayer in England throws no light for me on the issue before us in this case. England had then and has now an established church. Equally unenlightening, I think, is the history of the early establishment and later rejection of an official church in our own States. For we deal here not with the establishment of a state church, which would, of course, be constitutionally impermissible, but with whether school children who want to begin their day by joining in prayer must be prohibited from doing so.

"Moreover, I think that the Court's task, in this as in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the "wall of separation," a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What is relevant to the issue here is not the history of an established church in sixteenth century England or in eighteenth century America, but the history of the religious traditions of our people, reflected in countless practices of the institutions and officials of our government.

"At the opening of each day's Session of this Court we stand, while one of our officials invokes the protection of God. Since the days of John Marshall our Crier has said, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." Both the Senate and the House of Representatives open their daily Sessions with prayer. Each of our Presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, has upon assuming his Office asked the protection and help of God.

"The Court today says that the state and federal governments are without constitutional power to prescribe any particular form of words to be recited by any group of the American people on any subject touching religion. One of the stanzas of "The Star Spangled Banner," made our National Anthem by Act of Congress in 1931, contains these verses:

"Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation ! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto 'In God is our Trust."'

"In 1954 Congress added a phrase to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag so that it now contains the words "one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." In 1952 Congress enacted legislation calling upon the President each year to proclaim a National Day of Prayer. Since 1865 the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" have been impressed on our coins.

"Countless similar examples could be listed, but there is no need to belabor the obvious. It was all summed up by this Court just ten years ago in a single sentence: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 313.

"I do not believe that this Court, or the Congress, or the President has by the actions and practices I have mentioned established an "official religion" in violation of the Constitution. And I do not believe the State of New York has done so in this case. What each has done has been to recognize and to follow the deeply entrenched and highly cherished spiritual traditions of our Nation--traditions which come down to us from those who almost two hundred years ago avowed their "firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence" when they proclaimed the freedom and independence of this brave new world."

"I dissent."

Case Citation:

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Answer 4

Yes. Steven L. Engel was the nominal petitioner(comparable to a plaintiff) in Engel v. Vitale, but his name was used to represent a group of families in Hyde Park, New York, who objected to a state law mandating schools lead students in a brief prayer at the start of each day.

The nominal respondent (comparable to a defendant) was William J. Vitale, in his capacity as President of the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9 (aka Herricks School District).

Case Citation:

Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 5

Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962)

Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the Court, which opened with the following statement:

"Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day -- even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited."

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 6

Religious prayers in public schools.

Answer 7

dragon ballz