Abington School District V. Schempp Case Study

In the case of Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, several students in January of 1990 sued the school board alleging that Westside's refusal to allow the students to start a Christian club violated the Equal Access Act. Some students wanted to form this club and be given the same privileges and meeting terms as other after-school schools in this district. The administration initially denied the request, and the school board upheld the administration's decision. The Court of Appeals found in favor of the students in June of 1990.

The father, a nonbeliever, fought that the words "under God" in the Pledge abused the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and that the school region's recitation arrangement was

The Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe stated that student-led/ student-initiated prayer at high school football games violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. The Baptist religion was promoted in the Santa Fe Independent School District in Texas, which is located between Galveston and Houston. A teacher handed out flyers for a “revival meeting” which involved reading the bible and other Catholic things. They offered prayer up to God at graduations, assemblies, and football games. One mormon student and mother filed suit against the school district. Also, one catholic student and mother filed suit against the school district. Their lawsuit involved that the Establishment Clause was violated many times. They did not

Decision: In 1985, the principal and superintendent of Westside High School (a secondary school in Omaha, Nebraska) cited the Establishment Clause as a reason for denying the request of Bridget Mergens to form a Christian club that would have the same privileges and meet on the same terms and conditions as other Westside student groups, except that it would have no faculty sponsor. Ms. Mergens took the case to court, and won at first. She lost on appeal at the 8th Circuit Court, and then later won in a 8-1 decision from the Supreme Court

Abington School District v. Schempp is a 1963 Supreme Court Case that challenged religious prayer and teachings in Pennsylvania public schools. The Pennsylvania law made it a requirement for schools in all districts to read from the Bible (at least 10 verses) every day before class began. There was also a clause included in the state action that allowed for any child to be excused from the reading with specific permission from their parent or guardian. The question that this case asks is if it is unconstitutional for public schools to mandate children to partake in Bible teachings and practices before classes began. The reason this case was heard in front of the Supreme court is because the Abington School District wanted to reverse an earlier decision by a district court. The district court decided in favor of the Schempp family and found that forced prayer in public schools, even with an opt out clause, still violates the Constitution under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Once the case was heard in front of the United States Supreme Court, eight out of the nine justices agreed with the previous district court’s ruling and found that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1966) was first brought to the United States District Court in 1966. The plaintiffs were John F. Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhardt. All were minors at the time so they were represented by their fathers, Leonard Tinker and William Eckhardt. The defendant in this case was Des Moines Independent Community School District.

In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to

S. Court granted review of the case. Milford Central School’s arguments are that Good News Club is in violation of the Establishment Clause because the organizations purpose is religion and the students, especially the elementary students, would not be able to distinguish the religion instruction from the school instruction. In addition, the school has a “limited public forum” and cannot accept every application or open its doors every time an organization wants it to ("Find Law", 2015). The school related their argument to previous cases, such as, Engel v. Vitale Lee v. Weisman Sante Fe (school prayer), Peck v. Upsher County Board (no bibles in elementary schools), and Widmar v. Vincent (younger students are impressionable). Good News Club’s argument is that the school allows non-related organizations to “use the facilities based on expressive activities.” The club has a neutral viewpoint and is specific on the subject matter of promoting moral values. The club does not violate the Establishment Clause because they are neutral, viewpoint is private and not a reflection of the school, and the club is not endorsed by the school. Additionally, the club is promoting the community to put themselves above others and that is discriminated against its religious speech. The previous cases that the club uses to support their argument are Lambs Chapel v. Moriches School District (religious viewpoint but not religious purpose), Rosenberger b. Rector and

Despite adopting this test, the Supreme Court has been quick to disregard the test and lower the wall separating issues of state and faith as long as educational barriers such as the banishment of school prayer remained untouched. This quick change was evident in the 1981 ruling by the court that a law that prohibited the use of public school properties and campuses for religious purposes unconstitutional was deemed itself unconstitutional. This slow reduction of the separating wall was evident in many more cases through the Supreme Court's following history; cases such as deeming acts of the University of Virginia unconstitutional, who violated the free speech of a fundamentalist Christian group by not funding their magazine. Other following cases slowly deemed the funding of Christian organizations and schools more acceptable as Christian books and financial aid to said students, was deemed constitutionally sound if the aid went to the school, not to the students. These establishment issues not only of education but on the use of religious displays and depictions in

Schempp 374 US 203 (1963), 2015). The Schempp family were Unitarians, so they objected to some ideas in the Bible. They had the option to excuse their children from the Bible reading, but then their children would have missed out on some of the morning announcements. (Supreme Court Cases, 2015) So as to not hinder their children?s learning opportunities, the Schempp family brought their issue to the State appeals court. Later, the State appeals court took the side of the Schempp family and stated the Abington School District violated the Establishment Clause, which is a clause in the First Amendment that prohibits the government from establishing a religion. (Supreme Court Cases, 2015) When the issue was brought to the Supreme Court in 1963, the question was simple, did the Pennsylvania law and Abington 's policy violate the religious freedom of their students that is protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015)?

In 1947, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the defendant in a case named Everson v Board of Education. In this case, the Majority opinion laid out an interpretation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution for the first time in regards to how it should be applied. As such, it would set the precedence for the way that the Supreme Court would look at the First Amendment even until today. Although in this particular instance, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of religion and schools, this new definition of the First Amendment would go on to be used against religion in the American public school system for years to come until it would be almost entirely eradicated from public schools today. While many scholars have written on this case and have taken a stand on whether or not the interpretation is poor or good, they all agree on the impact that it had on Supreme Court decision’s moving forward.

When defending himself to his principal, he used the first amendment but was still not taken seriously and was then required to see his guidance counselor for months afterward. This high school student then wrote a letter to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) to ask for help. The ACLU had been searching for a “plaintiff” for many years. After taking this argument to the court, Abington school district defended themselves by saying that “Bible reading was not a religious practice” and that students who did not want to listen to the scripture reading did not have to, they also argued that the “practice need not to be outlawed because the Constitution does not require government to be ‘hostile to religion’” (The Battle pg. 167). To the school board also argued that “to outlaw Bible reading would blaze a trail that would eliminate from public life customs that ‘are now and have long been cherished and accepted by a vast majority of the people (The Battle pg. 167). The Schempp received harassment and abuse from other citizens living in Abbington because of their support of the end to scripture reading. In 1959, the federal district court found that this practice was unconstitutional but the school board quickly found a loophole. The school district then decided to excuse students not wanting to participate in the reading

Abernathy’s speech in the Martin high school graduation was a violation of the constitution. The lawsuit was so strongly supported that three other families with children that attended Martin High school joined the Roes in suing the school system. The three families that are supporting the lawsuit consist of a Jewish family, non-atheist family, and a family that prefers to not describe their religion. The lower court’s rulings are as follows, the United States District Court ruled in favor of WCPS. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court and found the actions of WCPS to be unconstitutional. The essential question the court is being asked to answer is whether Petitioner Western County Public Schools’ policy permitting student prayer and sectarian speech at a public high school graduation ceremony violated the Establishment

In this case, petitioner private citizens filed a suit against the superintendent of public schools in Kentucky, James Graham. Sydell and a number of other parents challenged the Kentucky state law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. Each plaque would be purchased with private contributions and would have that statement, “The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.” The private citizens claimed that the statue violated the First Amendment and sought an injunction against its enforcement. The state supreme court held that the statue’s purpose was secular and it would neither advance nor inhibit any religion or religious group nor involve the state excessively in religious matters. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court held that the statue had no secular legislative purpose and was, therefore, unconstitutional. The purpose for posting the Ten Commandments was clearly religious due to the fact that they are sacred in the Jewish and Christian faiths, therefore violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This particular case will support my argument by confirming that hanging up items on school walls that do

The Court decided that having the prayer in public school was unconstitutional and conflicted with the Establishment Clause. The prayer violated the Establishment Clause because the prayer was established by government officials. Based on the idea of the separation of the church and state that was greatly pursued by the founding fathers, the court continued with the ban not because they were anti religious but because it violated the First Amendment.