Doremus v. Board of Education of Borough of Hawthorne
Decision Date | 03 March 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 9,9 |
Citation | 96 L.Ed. 475,342 U.S. 429,72 S.Ct. 394 |
Parties | DOREMUS et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Heyman Zimel, Paterson, N.J., for appellants.
Messrs. Henry F. Schenk, Theodore D. Parsons, Trenton, N.J., for appellee.
This action for a declaratory judgment on a question of federal constitutional law was prosecuted in the state courts of New Jersey. It sought to declare invalid a statute of that State which provides for the reading, without comment, of five verses of the Old Testament at the opening of each public-school day. N.J.Rev.Stat., 1937, 18:14—77, N.J.S.A. No issue was raised under the State Constitution, but the Act was claimed to violate the clause of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibiting establishment of religion.
No trial was held and we have no findings of fact, but the trial court denied relief on the merits on the basis of the pleadings and a pretrial conference, of which the record contains meager notes. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, on appeal, rendered its opinion that the Act does not violate the Federal Constitution, in spite of jurisdic- tional doubts which it pointed out but condoned as follows: 1950, 5 N.J. 435, 439, 75 A.2d 880, 881—882.
Upon appeal to this Court, we considered appellants' jurisdictional statement but, instead of nothing probable jurisdiction, ordered that 'Further consideration of the question of the jurisdiction of this Court in this case and of the motion to dismiss or affirm is postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits.' On further study, the doubts thus indicated ripen into a conviction that we should dismiss the appeal without reaching the constitutional question.
The view of the facts taken by the court below, though it is entitled to respect, does not bind us and we may make an independent examination of the record. Doing so, we find nothing more substantial in support of jurisdiction than did the court below. Appellants, apparently seeking to bring themselves within Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School Dist. No. 71, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 648, assert a challenge to the Act in two capacities—one as parent of a child subject to it, and both as taxpayers burdened because of its requirements.
In support of the parent-and-school-child relationship, the complaint alleged that appellant Klein was parent of a seventeen-year-old pupil in Hawthorne High School, where Bible reading was practiced pursuant to the Act. That is all. There is no assertion that she was injured or even offended thereby or that she was compelled to accept, approve or confess agreement with any dogma or creed or even to listen when the Scriptures were read. On the contrary, there was a pretrial stipulation that any student, at his own or his parents' request, could be excused during Bible reading and that in this case no such excuse was asked. However, it was agreed upon argument here that this child had graduated from the public schools before this appeal was taken to this Court. Obviously no decision we could render now would protect any rights she may once have had, and this Court does not sit to decide arguments after events have put them to rest. United States v. Alaska Steamship Co., 253 U.S. 113, 116, 40 S.Ct. 448, 449, 64 L.Ed. 808.
The complaint is similarly niggardly of facts to support a taxpayer's grievance. Doremus is alleged to be a citizen and taxpayer of the State of New Jersey and of the Township of Rutherford, but any relation of that Township to the litigation is not disclosed to one not familiar with local geography. Klein is set out as a citizen and taxpayer of the Borough of Hawthorne in the State of New Jersey, and it is alleged that Hawthorne has a high school supported by public funds. In this school the Bible is read, according to statute. There is no allegation that this activity is supported by any separate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Citizens for Quality Educ. San Diego v. Barrera
...from any particular appropriation or that it adds any sum whatever to the cost of conducting the school." Doremus v. Bd. of Educ ., 342 U.S. 429, 434, 72 S.Ct. 394, 96 L.Ed. 475 (1952) ; Plans, Inc. v. Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist ., 319 F.3d 504, 506 (9th Cir. 2003) ("A good-faith poc......
-
Members of Jamestown Sch. Com. v. Schmidt
...1975). Parties must be able to assert that they are immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury, Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429, 72 S.Ct. 394, 96 L.Ed. 475 (1952), and that the action complained of is sufficiently final so that the constitutional question involved will ......
-
Rice v. Cayetano
...tax dollars, and the allegedly illegal government activity. See Hoohuli, 741 F.2d at 1178 (citing Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429, 433-34, 72 S.Ct. 394, 396-97, 96 L.Ed. 475 (1952)). Plaintiffs here are taxpayers in the State of Hawaii who seek to enjoin the expenditure of state......
-
Hilsenrath ex rel. C.H. v. Sch. Dist. of the Chathams
...no longer present a live controversy when the student de-matriculates from the school. Doremus v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Hawthorne , 342 U.S. 429, 432–33, 72 S.Ct. 394, 96 L.Ed. 475 (1952) (Bible reading in class); Donovan , 336 F.3d at 216 (policy prohibiting Bible club); Altman v. Bed......
-
Table of Cases
...1530 Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965), 1298 Doremus v. Board of Educ. of Borough of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429, 72 S.Ct. 394, 96 L.Ed. 475 (1952), 621-22, 634, 677 Dorr v. United States (one of the Insular Cases), 195 U.S. 138, 24 S.Ct. 808, 49 L.Ed. 128......
-
Mootness and citizen suit civil penalty claims under the Clean Water Act: a post-Lujan reassessment.
...seeking to get his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he wishes to have adjudicated"); Doremus v. Board of Educ., 342 U.S. 429, 435 (1952) '[standing) is not a question of motivation but of possession of the requisite financial interest that is, or is threatened to be, i......
-
Informational regulation and informational standing: Akins and beyond.
...government "does not state an Article III case or controversy"). (156) See id. at 574-75 (quoting with approval Doremus v. Board of Educ., 342 U.S. 429, 433-34 (1952), which stated that "to invoke the judicial power ... it is not sufficient that [the citizen] has merely a general interest c......
-
Testing the boundaries of the First Amendment press clause: a proposal for protecting the media from newsgathering torts.
...marks omitted). (361.) Id. at 203 (internal quotation marks omitted). (362.) Id. at 204. (363.) Id. (citing Doremus v. Bd. of Educ., 342 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1952); Young v. Higbee Co., 324 U.S. 204, 214 (364.) 42 U.S.C. [section] 2000a (2006). (365.) 390 U.S. 400 (1968) (per curiam). (366.) I......