Lemon V. Kurtzman Case

The issue in this case was whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This case dealt with a New York state law that had required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This law had also allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found that it was objectionable. There was a parent that sued the school on behalf of their child. Their argument was that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable

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

Woodrow Wilson once referred to the Supreme Court as “a constant constitutional convention in continuous session”, due to the role they have played in interpreting the constitution as it is written. Due to the ambiguity found in much of the phrasing in the constitution, judicial interpretation of the constitution can be considered both necessary and inevitable (Comer, Gruhl et al., 2001). The courts have the power to declare unconstitutional the actions of the other branches and units of the government in what is known as judicial review (Tannahil, 2002). The first case in which the court elaborated on the principle of judicial review was that of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and put forward that in the case of conflict between the constitution and a statute, it is “the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (Smith, 1975). Following this, the case of Fletcher v Peck (1810) is of equal importance as it was the first case in which a state law was declared by the court to be unconstitutional.

Kiryas Joel v. Grummet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) The case of Kiryas Joel v. Grummet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994) was a case in which the New York Village of Kiryas Joel, a religious enclave of Satmar Hasidim, and its incorporators drew its boundaries under the state’s general village incorporation law to exclude all but Satmars (Find Law, 2015) in a separate district. Facts Facts about this case define the separation of a school district, based on the state of a New York law. This leads to a fact about this case.

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.

Ferguson upheld the separate but equal clause. According to the judges the state was following the constitution. Plessy's grievance was rejected stating that this Louisiana state law was not in violation of the constitution because it was separate and equal. This was similar to other cases that upheld segregation such as Roberts v. City of Boston. The separate but equal doctrine still had power for many years after this and this was a precedent that was followed especially in the south.

In Browns second case the courts overruled the Plessy v Ferguson in the matters of public schools. It was then put into action by the Courts that the states must integrate their

The 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith is about Smith and Black who were both members of a Native American Church and counselors at a private drug rehabilitation clinic. They were both fired because they had taken peyote as a part of their religious ceremonies, at that time the possession of peyote was a crime under the State law. The counselors filed for unemployment in the state, but were denied by the Employment Division because the reason for their unemployment was work-related misconduct. Smith and Black argued, stating that under the First Amendment the government is forbidden from prohibiting the "free exercise" of religion in this case the free exercise of peyote. Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, saying that denying them unemployment benefits for their religious use of peyote violated their right to as it was a part of their religion.

One of the first Supreme Court Cases that have happened to obtained Women’s Rights was in 1971. In 1971, there was a Supreme Court Cases called Phillips V. Martin Marietta Corporation. In of this court case Phillips tried to apply for a job of being of a preschool teacher and was denied. Phillips wasn’t the only one who applied and didn’t receive the job, since 80% of the applicants were denied because the were all women. So, once has just Phillips found out that she was denied from a job, just by her gender she took it the authorities to show them what Martin Marietta Corp. was doing. Due to Phillips fight towards the Martin Marietta Corp. it went to Supreme Court and Phillips won. The jury saw that Martin Marietta was having a discriminatory

This case was not just an event in history, but a strong point that supported and still supports equality to this day. People can use this case to help support their reasoning for what they believe in and why certain actions should

(2) Background Information 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

This case, which concerned racial segregation laws for public facilities such as restrooms, restaurants, and water fountains, made its way all the way to the Supreme Court. As way of background, in 1890 Louisiana passed a law which required blacks and whites to ride in separate train cars. However, in 1892, Homer A. Plessy, who was a black man, boarded a car designated for whites only. He was asked to leave, but refused and was arrested immediately. In the case, Plessy vs Ferguson, Plessy’s position was that his rights were violated under the 13th and 14th amendments of the Constitution, which dictated equal treatment under the law.

Notаbly absent from the opinion, as it was in Plessy, is any citаtion to a Supreme Court cаse that considered whether the prаctice of segregating schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Аmendment. It was an open question for the Court. 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."

Abington SD vs. Schempp This case concerns Bible reading in the public schools of Pennsylvania. When the students who attended arrived for school, they were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After that, they were required to recite the Lord’s Prayer. The only way to avoid these activities was written note from the parents. The United States Supreme Court favored Schempp and declared this Bible reading to be unconstitutional.

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.