Burger Court Case Analysis

Since the Declaration of Independence was drafted founding itself on individual privileges and choice, happiness and democracy, a multitude of concerns have kindled the rights disputes that we see making law an active and continually growing and interesting area of interest today. Issues arose included women suffrage, civil equality, slavery, the ability to hold a religious forum, along with many others. And, though the context and times have significantly changed with these concerns there still remains a constant struggle between state, religion, and schools. Prayer in public schools is still a topic of conversation. The giving of religious gifts to administrators and the funding of schools through tax-payer monies are

The case of Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).

Decision: The court ruled against the school district and upheld the establishment clause of the first

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.

A couple of the families were Jewish, another family was atheist, one parent was Unitarian and the last parent was of an ethical culture society. The Parents were to believe that the school was violating the first amendment of the constitution and this was not right; that according to Thomas Jefferson there should be a separation of state and church. Never before had the public school board been argued against with prayer like issues ( Haas, pg 7-20).

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

A more recent case which is similar to Everson v. Board of Education, is Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. The taxpayers of Arizona were challenging the fact that a state law was providing tax credits to those who were donating to school tuition organizations in order for the schools to provide scholarships to those attending private/religious schools. The claim was that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.), which is the first of several pronouncements within the First Amendment within the U.S. Constitution, or the first ten amendments within the Bill of Rights, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Bill of Rights, 2016.). The Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 and argued that the plaintiff did not have enough information and standing to bring to the suit. Justice Kagen, in her dissent, stated that “cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government object; to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.). Although the ruling was made on “narrow grounds”, according to Peter Wooley, a political science and direction of the PublicMind Poll, the plaintiff in one “guise or another will be back another day” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.).

At the Supreme Court trial, with an 8-1 decision, Justice Clark wrote the majority opinion of the court. (Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963) The Supreme Court justices argued that "state-sponsored devotional Bible readings in public schools constitute an impermissible religious exercise by government.? (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015) The court also argued that the Abington School District violated the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from being involved in religious

In 1983, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform was released. Regarded as a landmark event in American educational history, the report was scathing in its critique of America’s public education system. For many, it was proof of an already growing sentiment – America’s public education system was failing its people. In the aftermath of the report, a movement emerged. The concept of school choice, of returning the decision as to how and where a child was to be educated to the parent, burst onto the national scene. While school choice had a number of vocal supporters, a sizeable contingent arose in opposition. Over time, the topic became contentious and the battle moved to the courtroom. As lawyer Clint Bolick, a veteran of school

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.

In 1962, Engel v. Vitale was an important Supreme Court Case in the United States that required a firm “wall of separation” between church and state. A group of families in New Hyde park, New York did not appreciate the implementation of a state prayer in their children’s schools. They families challenged the court about the constitutionality of this practice. The courts were in favor of the families as Justice Hugo

Issue: Do statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Is it constitutional for the state to provide financial assistance to religious schools for the cost of teaching secular subjects? The trial of Lemon v. Kurtzman was a groundbreaking case that took place in Pennsylvania. The case began because the state of Pennsylvania passed a law that allowed the local government to use money to fund educational programs that taught religious-based lessons, activities, and studies. This law was passed through the Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education

The last century has seen a great deal of governmental interaction with religious groups and practices. As a result, the use of litigation to settle these disputes has been extremely prevalent. Perhaps, the first trial to outline the Establishment Clause was Everson v. Board of Education. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision upholding a New Jersey program that covered the cost of bus transportation for students attending private schools (Rossum, 281). Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the religious students, it unanimously agreed that the Establishment Clause was designed to serve as a separating force between church and state.

In this article, the author is explaining Chief Justice Rehnquist’s reaction to the decision that Ohio’s school voucher program is constitutional, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the article, Chief Justice Rehnquist is quoted saying the voucher program is constitutional, because the choice of where the government money will go lies with the parents. Therefore, the government is not deciding whether or not to support religious schools. However, Justice Souter observed that ninety-six percent of the students who received the vouchers then attended a religious school. Justice Souter believed that there was a lack of secular schooling

To allow public opinion into account the Supreme Court decisions is a wise decision. I first agreed that the Supreme Court known as the Judicial Branch, should not be influenced by external factors like the public in order to interpret the law. However, in reality, that’s not what goes beyond the scene. Those that are appointed in office are very competent and highly qualified for the position to interpret the law, but who are the Supreme Court interoperating the law for? The people; and I deem that the high court should consider, public opinion especially if it’s life changing. For example, if the majority of the people decided they want to keep their abortion rights, then the court should aside with majority rather than the minority. It’s