School District of Abington Township v. Schempp

Supreme Court of the United States
374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

A state law or school board rule requiring religious exercises, such as Bible reading and prayer recitation in public schools, is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if students may be excused from participation.

Facts:

In Pennsylvania, a state law, 24 Pa. Stat. § 15-1516, required that at least ten verses from the Holy Bible be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school day.
The law allowed any child to be excused from the Bible reading upon the written request of a parent or guardian.
Edward and Sidney Schempp, who were Unitarians, had children attending Abington Senior High School, where daily opening exercises broadcast into each classroom included Bible verses and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer.
The Schempps believed the readings promoted religious doctrines contrary to their family's beliefs and chose not to excuse their children for fear they would be stigmatized.
In a companion case from Baltimore, Maryland, a Board of School Commissioners rule provided for opening exercises consisting of reading a chapter from the Holy Bible and/or the use of the Lord's Prayer.
Madalyn Murray and her son, William, both professed atheists, challenged the Baltimore rule, arguing it threatened their religious liberty by placing a premium on belief over non-belief.
Although William Murray was excused from the exercises at his mother's request, the Murrays contended the practice itself was an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Procedural Posture:

In the Schempp case, the family sued the Abington School District in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
A three-judge panel of the District Court held the Pennsylvania Bible-reading statute unconstitutional.
After the statute was amended to allow for student excusal, the District Court, on remand from the Supreme Court, again found the statute unconstitutional.
The school district (appellant) then appealed that decision directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the Murray case, the family sued the Baltimore Board of School Commissioners in a Maryland state trial court, which dismissed their petition.
The Murrays (appellants) appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state's highest court), which affirmed the dismissal, upholding the practice.
The Murrays (petitioners) then successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and the Court consolidated the two cases for review.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state law or school board rule requiring daily Bible readings and recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Clark

Yes, state laws and practices requiring Bible readings and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools are unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause. To withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause, there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. The exercises at issue are religious in character and are prescribed as part of the school's curricular activities, which violates the government's duty to maintain strict neutrality toward religion. The fact that students may be excused from the exercises is not a defense, as the Establishment Clause is violated by the enactment of the law itself, regardless of whether it directly coerces non-observing individuals.

Concurring - Justice Douglas

Yes, the state-mandated religious exercises violate the Establishment Clause. These practices fall because the State is conducting a religious exercise and, crucially, because public funds are being used to promote it. The use of public funds, however small, to finance a religious activity is unconstitutional because it requires all people, through the mechanism of the state, to finance a religious exercise that only some desire. What may not be done directly may not be done indirectly, lest the Establishment Clause become a mockery.

Concurring - Justice Brennan

Yes, the exercises violate the Establishment Clause's command of governmental neutrality. The history of the First Amendment shows it was designed to prevent the interdependence of religion and state. These devotional exercises, which are religious in character, threaten the substantive evils the Framers feared. The availability of an excusal procedure does not cure the constitutional defect because it operates in a way that can infringe on the free exercise rights of those who wish to be excused, subjecting them to social pressures and stigmatization.

Concurring - Justice Goldberg

Yes, the state-mandated religious exercises are unconstitutional. The government must maintain an attitude of neutrality, which is not the same as hostility to religion. While the government must recognize the existence and importance of religion, the practices at issue here go beyond permissible accommodation. They involve direct governmental participation in religious exercises in a manner that has a significant impact, particularly on young, impressionable children whose attendance is compelled, and thus fall within the interdiction of the First Amendment.

Dissenting - Justice Stewart

No, a determination of unconstitutionality cannot be made on the current record. A doctrinaire reading of the Establishment Clause can conflict with the Free Exercise Clause. Prohibiting these exercises could be seen as establishing a 'religion of secularism' and interfering with the free exercise rights of parents who desire them for their children. The dispositive issue should be coercion, not establishment, and the record contains no evidence of coercion against any student. The cases should be remanded for the taking of evidence on whether the excusal provisions effectively remove any government coercion.

Analysis:

This decision established the influential 'purpose and primary effect' test for evaluating Establishment Clause claims, a precursor to the Lemon test. By striking down mandatory Bible reading, the Court solidified the principle of governmental neutrality toward religion, extending the reasoning of Engel v. Vitale. The ruling clarified that the Establishment Clause can be violated even without direct coercion, shifting the focus to whether the state is endorsing or advancing religion. This precedent significantly shaped subsequent jurisprudence concerning religion in public life, affecting cases on school prayer, moments of silence, and religious displays on government property.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"