Final Project: Legal Brief and Presentation

U.S. Supreme Court ENGEL v. VITALE,
370 U.S. 421 (1962) 370 U.S. 421

Facts of the case
In 1951, a non-denominational prayer was approved by the New York State of Regents to be recited daily in public schools.
The words to this prayer read: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
The intentions of the school district to apply this prayer was to cause a positive reaction for the students through this prayer. State officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program." (http://www.wakeupamerica.org/html/1962Supreme.html).

Although voluntary, parents of 10 student from New Hyde Park, New York, argued that this prayer was contrary to their religious beliefs and that it goes against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar10.html). The parents argued that their children did not have these beliefs and that church should not be involved in state matters such as schools. The fact that it was voluntary was not a significant argument because it would cause influence to non-christian students.
Many of these parents came from a religious background which was not easily accepted in countries from which they came. Their ability to practice their specific beliefs in the United States gave them the freedom that was promised to them. With that in mind, for their children to be in a government institution such as a school, where are religion which was not their own, was a focus, the loss of freedom was felt.

Issue of the case
The First Amendment of The United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” ( http://www. infoplease. com/ us/ supreme-court/cases/ar10.html). Did the New York State of Regents violate this law by approving daily recital of this prayer in public schools? The Regents argued that because the prayer was voluntary, those who recited this were not influenced to establish any sort of religion. As far as the parents of the ten students, they argue that because this was applied at the school, they would be influenced and that it no longer separated church and state. The argument that the school was omitting the line between church and state was a strong issue in this case. Also, because the school district is the organization which applied this daily prayer, those students who attend would feel pressured to obey or follow along with the recital.

Decision of the court
Mr. Justice Hugo Black delivered the Supreme Court decision on the case. “We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.” (http://www. wakeupamerica. Org /html/ 1962Supreme.html). Since the prayer, although not stated, was obviously a Christian focused prayer. It was not established in individual persons, but did “respect” a particular type of belief. Mr. Justice Douglas concurred and Mr. Justice Stewart dissented. “Justice Felix Frankfurter suffered a cerebral stroke that forced him to retire, and Justice Byron White took no part in the case.” (http://www. wakeupamerica. Org /html/ 1962Supreme.html).

Reasoning of the court
Being that a school district is an established organization, for them to create a prayer makes Christianity the established religion of that organization. The fact that it was a prayer made it a religious focus and there was no arguing on the part.
One of the main reason why immigrants came to the United States was to attain religious freedom, which did not in their own country. When the support of government is behind a certain religion, students are pressured to give in to the majority who volunteer in the activity.
Also, clearly in the past the lack of separation between government and the church has caused major issues, sometimes dangerous, this was considered by the Justice. This also applies to places of business.
The court referred to historical review on a book titled, Book of Common Prayer in England, to add explanation to their reasoning.
Rule of law
The prayer created by the government and implemented in the school was found to be a clear violation of the Constitutions Establishment Clause. The case was decided on June 25, 1962. “Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day -- even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436.” (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0370_0421_ZS.html).

Argument
It’s difficult to really give a reasonable argument against the Supreme Court. However, one thing I would have an opinion on would be the the word “respect” in the stated Establishment Clause. To rule out a prayer due to other religions, wouldn’t that be respecting all the other decisions? Overall, it seems that the issue with the prayer being voluntary was overlooked but should not have been. Whether the student would be influenced to recite the prayer should not have a been an argument. Bottom line is, it was not forced and was not established on any person. In doing away with one religion, many were “respected”.
My personal opinion is that the prayers in school provided structure, but again that is a personal opinion. It seems they focused on giving freedom to those who did not chose to recite, when there was no freedom taken away from them. At the same time, those who

Dissent
6-1 was the judicial vote due to issues with Justice Frankfurter and Justice Byron White. Mr. Justice Steward dissented, stating, “ A local school board in New York has provided that those pupils who wish to do so may join in a brief prayer at the beginning of each school day, acknowledging their dependence upon God and asking His blessing upon them [p445] and upon their parents, their teachers, and their country. The Court today decides that, in permitting this brief nondenominational prayer, the school board has violated the Constitution of the United States. I think this decision is wrong.”
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0370_0421_ZD.html).
He argues that no one’s freedom was violated by allowing those who wanted to recite the prayer, to do so. He also, explains that the prayer is a prayer that belong the the religion of our Nation and to deny students who wished to recite the prayer the opportunity to do so, takes away their freedom to express their belief.
Along with this dissention argument, he stated many other prayers and statement involved in government activities.