Case Elk Grove Unified School District V Newdow

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: 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.

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

A controversial issue I’ve seen pop up within the past few years, is that of the pledge of allegiance being said in classes. As with prayer in schools, the issue that people have is that they claim it is unconstitutional as the phrase “under god” violates the first amendment right to freedom of religion. The opposing view point argues that it is disrespectful and unpatriotic to not say the pledge, as people have died to protect us. Another point made against the view that it violates the first amendment, is that it only states “under god” not pointing to one specific religion. This debate has been going on since the early 2000’s. several appeals have been filed to the supreme court as seen in Newdow v. U.S. congress. Where Michael Newdow tried

The First Amendment being fought over, in 2004, Elk Grove Unified School District vs. Newdew, a father challenged constitutionality of requiring public school teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, which included the phrase " Under God", since 1954. The court determined that mr. Newdew, as a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to bring the case to

A public school in New York during the start of each school day started with the Pledge of Allegiance and followed by a nondenominational prayer. The New York state law also allowed students to skip the prayer if found offensive. A parent of a student attending this school sued deeming the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Supreme Courts majority rule (8-1) claimed YES the public school sponsored prayer violates Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even with allowing students to skip the prayer, it was still considered unconstitutional. This case is important because Chief Justice, Earl Warren states that school sanctioned prayers, including any type of public promotion of religion, violates the Establishment

Citation: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. United States Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit, 1986 795 F2.d 1368, cert. granted, Supreme Court of the United States, Eighth Circuit, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that phrase did indeed endorse religion which was contrary to the law and the Constitution. The suit was, however, dismissed because Mr. Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and could not, by law, file a suit on her behalf.

The American education system is one of the main places of controversy for the Separation of Church and State. Almost every child in the United States attends some type of school, many of them public systems. In such a school setting, these children are often exposed to the beliefs of their teachers and administrators, as well as their own classmates. In Greece, New York, ever since 1999, the town board has begun their monthly gatherings with prayer. Rev. Lou Sirianni begins his gathering by stating: "Be thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly," the prayer ended, "All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior" (Wolf 1). Recently in 2007, two residents who regularly attended board meetings, Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, complained that the prayers were promoting more of a Christian community than any other religion (Masci 3). Although separation of church and state is stated briefly in the First Amendment, these two ladies had the right to go after the town for not allowing a freedom of religion and for most importantly throwing religion into a government owned school function. The case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2007 and is still under debate, with a result hopefully by the end of June 2014. The question is whether or not this prayer is allowed at a school function. Not everyone is willing to put

Seventy-three years ago, Congress put the United States in a difficult situation. It concerned the Pledge of Allegiance. They decided to add the phrase “Under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance which started a great amount of controversy among people. Some people argument that since “under God” was never a part of the original Pledge of Allegiance and many US citizens don't believe in a god at all. Any pledge they may make 'under god' would be irrational and irrelevant. But the rest have a different idea about the problem. They believe the U.S. is a nation founded by religious persons and Americans are joined by great ties to multiple religions, so there should be no separation of church and state. They want to keep the “Under God” in the pledge. Gwen Wilde, a student at Tufts University, explains this issue in her essay, “Why the Pledge of Allegiance Should Be Revised”. She says “the addition of the words ‘under God’ is inappropriate, and they are needlessly

Intro- about 10 ten years ago, in the year 1951,the New York Board of Regents approved a “Quote” “nondenominational prayer”. It was 22 words long and The blandest of invocations read as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country." voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of parent in New Hyde Park, New York Steven Engel was a parent in New Hyde Park, New York. He and a group of other parents objected to the daily speaking of the prayer, even though it was voluntary, at the start of each school day. Steven Engel and his group of supporting parents sued William Vitale, the president of the local school board. The parents reasoning was that this optional prayer didn’t align with the views of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 1st amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The establishment clause states quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Originally, the Establishment Clause was only added to the Constitution to keep the federal government from establishing a national religion.

The argument of being made to stand and say the pledge has become a hot topic. People believe that the portion of “Under God” is unconstitutional and should be taken out. However there are also people who believe that everyone should say the pledge to their country. There is deep and rich history on the pledge itself. The pledge should still be said in public schools to keep a sense of patriotism in the country.