The Good News Club Case

The court case, Good News Club, et. al. v. Milford Central School is based on whether a religious group may use a public facility, such as a public school, for their activities, for singing and reciting verses from the bible. Milford Central School, grades kindergarten through 12th, is located in Milford, NY. Milford Central School created a policy, Milford Community Use of Facilities Policy, in 1992 which states that groups could apply to use the facilities after school hours. The groups that are permitted to use the facilities after school hours could hold “social and civic meetings, entertainment events, and other uses pertaining to the welfare of the community”("Find Law", 2015). The policy also states, “School premises shall not be used

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

The case was about a group of students’ families in New York state. They complained about the voluntary prayer written by the state about the Almighty God. They stated that the prayers were contradicted their beliefs. The plaintiff led by Steven Engel, which is a Jewish, and the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the state's prayer in school policy. ("Engel v. Vitale." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 18 May 2017.) The parents were arguing that the prayer violated the law of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.("Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale." United States Courts. N.p., n.d.

The court case that I chose, Westside Community Schools vs. Mergens took place in 1990. A girl named Bridget, who was a senior at Westside High School in Omaha, Nebraska wanted to start a religious club for kids in her school. When she brought her idea to the principal of the school, he denied her request for a religious club, and said that it would be illegal to have a religious club at a public school. Bridget tested her principal, and the case was brought to court. Her lawsuit became the Supreme Court's test case for another big case that they were dealing with.

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.

A student at Westside High School requested to form a Christian Club that would meet after school. The club would be granted the same privileges as the other student groups at the school, but they did not have a faculty sponsor. Her request was denied by the principal stating that the club would violate the Establishment Clause and the School Board policy requiring a faculty member to sponsor the club. Mergens took her concerns to the School Board. The School Board upheld the principal’s decision. Mergens filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education of Westside Community Schools, for denying the request for a Christian

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

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

In my opinion, this court case gives freedoms to students today when it comes to religious clubs or decisions to participate in religious activities and allows students to make their own choices to determine their path in life.

The appeals court decision came almost 40 years to the day after the Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. In that case, the court ruled it unconstitutional for public schools to allow prayer, even though the prayer was non-denominational and students were allowed abstain from the exercise. When

Case number 2: McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), this was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with separation of church and state. This case was argued at the United States Supreme Court to the power of a state to use tax money to support public schools to provide religious instruction.

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.

as being the first case to protect students ' First Amendment rights at school. By ruling that it was

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

This case has also set the groundwork for forthcoming cases such as Bethel School District v. Fraser where the courts decision was based on this landmark case. It was stated that basically “students are not granted the same coextensive rights as adults in other settings outside of school”. Institutions of education still apply the decisions made in New Jersey v. T.L.O. to today’s school settings to maintain order and accountability of student well