Skip to content

Engel vs. Vitale

Background

  • Name of the Case: Engel v. Vitale
  • Year Decided: 1962
  • Facts: The case involved a New York State law that allowed schools to start the day with a non-denominational prayer. The prayer was intended to be voluntary. A group of parents sued on behalf of their children, arguing that the prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • Issue: The primary issue was whether the state's endorsement of a prayer at the start of the school day violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
  • Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in favor of Engel, finding that the law did indeed violate the Establishment Clause.
  • Majority Decision Reasoning: The Court held that by providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion, which was a violation of the Establishment Clause. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, emphasized that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government.
  • Dissenting Opinion Reasoning: Justice Potter Stewart was the lone dissenter, arguing that the majority's decision was a misunderstanding of the Constitution's intent. He believed that the practice of reciting a prayer was a part of the nation's traditions and did not constitute an establishment of religion.
  • Impact of the Case: Engel v. Vitale was a landmark decision that helped to establish the principle of separation of church and state, particularly within the public school system. It set a precedent for future cases regarding the Establishment Clause and the role of religion in public schools.

Questions

  • Why are schools and school and school officials synonymous with "government" in the case?

    Schools and school officials are considered extensions of the government because public schools are funded and regulated by the government. As such, any action taken by a public school or its officials is treated as an action of the state itself.

  • Why does the majority refer to colonial history?

    The majority referred to colonial history to understand the intentions of the framers of the Constitution regarding religion and government. They wanted to emphasize that a fundamental principle of the First Amendment was to prevent government intrusion into religious matters, reflecting concerns from colonial times about religious persecution and the establishment of a state religion.

  • How are the clauses of the first amendment related? How do they relate to the fourteenth?

    The First Amendment includes both the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which protects citizens' rights to practice their religion freely. These clauses are interrelated, aiming to ensure religious freedom by preventing government interference in religious affairs. The Fourteenth Amendment makes these protections applicable to the states through its Equal Protection Clause, extending the First Amendment's restrictions to state governments.

  • Describe to comparison Justice Stewart is making between West Virginia v. Barnette in the case.

    In West Virginia v. Barnette, the Supreme Court ruled that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. Justice Stewart, in his dissent in Engel, likely drew a comparison to argue that just as compelling a salute to the flag was a violation of individual rights, compelling a prayer could be seen similarly. However, the majority in Engel saw the prayer as an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion, not just a violation of individual rights.

  • Do you believe the examples cited here are a violation of the establishment clause? Or are they proof of a religious tradition in American Culture?

    The Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, found that the government's involvement in the prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause. However, others, like Justice Stewart, might see such practices as benign or even supportive of a broader religious tradition in American culture. Whether these examples violate the Establishment Clause or are part of a religious tradition is at the heart of ongoing debates about the separation of church and state.