Engel V. Vitale Summary

They ruled that the 1st amendment did not guarantee ultimate freedom of speech and anyone violating the government could be overthrown by the state. The historical impact that the case was made mostly from Justice Brandeis, who stated that immediate serious and evil threats should be the only ones that are taken seriously enough to strip away someone’s granted rights. Brandeis’s opinion was put to use in 1969 when the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which is when the court overruled the decision. Yes, there are laws to help protect the natural-born citizens of this country, but if they can be taken and maneuvered to make sure the courts get what they want, why have

The state Supreme Court, in addressing the ill fitting correlation drawn in Stamos’ citation of Bell v. Lone Oak Independent School District as an explanation of how students have a fundamental right to participate in extracurricular activities, stated that correlations between the fundamental right of marriage and this case could not be aligned.

The Melton v. Young case is about a high school student that was suspended for wearing a jacket with a Confederate flag. The issue that was discussed is, whether or not the school officials could suspend a student for wearing Confederate flag. The clothing sparking racial tension was also discussed. The racial tension from the previous year was an argument for the defense because it can be said that the jacket could have refueled this. The defense also stated that the Melton family was informed of the new rules and chose to break them. The plaintiff’s argument was that the student’s suspension was unconstitutional and the confederate flag is a part of his heritage. The district court ruled the school’s dress code policy unconstitutionally

As well as the lawsuit filed by Alton Lemon, this incident involved two other cases that fell under the same issue, Earley v. DiCenso and Robinson v. DisCenso. Both conflicts involved a state law passed, through the Non- public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968, by the state of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. This act gave the government permission to fund religious based or parochial schools. Although the schools provided textbooks and instructional materials for secular subjects, a Pennsylvania instructor believed that this act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Lemon argued that that by providing this money

At first, Engel’s case was refused by Justice Bernard S. Meyer because he concluded that school prayer did not interfere with the public’s rights under the First Amendment. Later with the time, Engel did not give up on the case and took it to the Supreme Court instead of the New York Court of Appeals where it was reviewed for the second time. Finally, on June 25, 1962, the final decision was given and it declared the law unconstitutional (“Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale” 1). The opinion of the court was 6-1 in were six of them were concurrence and one of them dissented (Skelton 1). The author of the people who were concurrence was William Orville Douglas. Douglas and the other five of them supported Engel and the parents because they agreed that the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause were being violated; even if students were excused from performing the prayer. Most of the court also believed that“not every religion recognizes a God, so some are necessarily excluded even with this wording” (Skelton 1). In a national survey by the Nation’s School journal, it was found that “...50 percent of school administrators returning the questionnaire wanted the Engel decision reversed ; 48 percent of them supported it” (Dierenfield

The Court case Engel v. Vitale originated in a New York school where students and their parents felt their rights were being violated when the school implemented a mandatory prayer. Five decades later, Engel continues to be reviled by a good number of televangelists and politicians who take every opportunity to rail against the “godless public schools.” Eliminating school-sponsored prayer, they argue, set America on the road to moral and spiritual

On June 25, 1962, a Supreme Court case, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, was decided. The lawsuit was brought to the United States Supreme Court by parents (of students who attended schools in the Herricks School District) who complained that a nondenominational prayer instituted by the New York Board of Regents in their district was unconstitutional. The parents argued that the prayer, although optional, violated their First Amendment Rights. When the 6-1 (two justices did not vote) decision was made, it was ruled that voluntary prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. One concurring opinion was given, and the single judge that did not vote the same as the rest provided

The case was first heard in Pennsylvania but once that court ruled the law did not violate the first amendment he appealed and took it to the Supreme Court. In this hearing his main argument was that the law was in direct violation with the constitution which did not tolerate religions benefiting from state laws.The court went over the “three main evils” in order to prevent sponsorship, financial support, and involvement of the sovereign in religious activity. The first of those three tests is that the statute has to have a legislative purpose. Second, the principle must not advance or inhibit religion. Third, the statute cannot foster “ an excessive government entanglement with religion”. The Lemon v. Kurtzman case along with the Earley et al.v. DiCenso both passed the first test. Both had the intention to enhance quality of education. This argument convinced the judge and the law was considered unconstitutional. Not only did this case violate the first amendment but also the fourteenth amendment. That amendment states that a state cannot enforce a law that should take away the privileges of the citizens of the United States. It also mentions that a state should not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due processing of law. Especially with the DiCenso case though complete separation was impossible. Therefore, the decision wasn’t made for absolute separation but instead prevent encroachment as much as possible. Examples of that would be ensuring that the church followed building regulations and requiring that schools comply with the school attendance laws.This led to the creation of the lemon test which is not what it seems. Instead it is a classification system used to see if state laws regarding creating and the funding of religious institutions with money from the public is

This case examines the responsibility that a school district has to establish a program that deals with the various language issues of non-English speaking students. Kinney Lau and other non-English speaking students brought forth a lawsuit trying to force the San Francisco Unifed School District (SFUSD) to provide support for all non-English-speaking Chinese students with a bilingual education program so they could proficiently learn English. The case also attaches “strings” to school districts that receive federal financial assiatance.

The Court аdmitted that the precedent to which it cited involved discriminаtion between whites and blacks rаther thаn other rаces. However, the Court found no аppreciable difference here—"the decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Аmendment."

On October 15, 1975 Nine students were suspended from Central High School from Columbus, Ohio. They had destroyed school property and disrupting students from learning and were suspended for 10 days.One of the students amoung them was Dwight Lopez. It was required that the student's parents be informed of the suspension within 24 hours with given reason. If the student were expelled, they would allowed to appeal to the Board of Education. The principal gave the students suspension without holding a hearing, it was okay because Ohio law did not make it required to do so.But they were also later expelled without a right to have due process. The federal courts believed that the students rights were being violated.The District Court held Central High School accountable for its violation of the 14th Amendment, it stated that

The Equal Access Act upheld by the Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Mergens, 1990, requires public secondary schools to allow access to religiously based student groups on the same basis as other student clubs. The school administration denied a group of students their right to create a Christian after school club. The students intended for their club to have just the same privileges and club meetings as all other after school clubs. The schools excuse being that it lacked faculty support which led to the school and district being sued by the students. “The students alleged that Westside 's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requires that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages” (Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens by and Through Mergens). Many still argue today that Westside 's prohibition against the Christian club, consistent with the Establishment Clause, makes the Equal Access Act unconstitutional.

Prayer in public schools became an issue in 1960. A woman by the name of Madalyn Murray O’Hair sued the Baltimore, Maryland school system, because her son William J Murray was allegedly being forced to participate in prayer at the public school he attended. The American Atheist Organization, alongside Madalyn’s actions consequently led to the Supreme Court ruling in the 1960s. On June 17, 1963, the Supreme Court published its ruling on the case. The Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading and prayer in schools were unconstitutional. Justice Tom C. Clark, who wrote the court ruling, wrote that religious freedom is embedded in our public and private life, and while freedom of worship is indispensable in America, the government must be neutral

In the Opinion Announcement of Morse v. Frederick, Justice Roberts said, "...students do not shed their First Amendments rights at the schoolhouse gate... The rights of students at {a} school are not the same as the rights of adults in the community at large" (Morse). The point he is getting across is that even though students still have their first amendment right at school it is more filtered as they are required to follow school policy (Morse). In the case of Morse v Frederick, his first amendment was not broken as he was promoting illegal drug use at a school event which is explicitly prohibited at school no matter if at school grounds or not (Morse). From this case, it is further understood that students still have some right to be free

Education Topeka (1937). This was a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all the lack parents