Engel v. Vitale, No. 468

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBLACK
Citation8 L.Ed.2d 601,82 S.Ct. 1261,370 U.S. 421
Docket NumberNo. 468
Decision Date25 June 1962
PartiesSteven I. ENGEL et al., Petitioners, v. William J. VITALE, Jr., et al

370 U.S. 421
82 S.Ct. 1261
8 L.Ed.2d 601
Steven I. ENGEL et al., Petitioners,

v.

William J. VITALE, Jr., et al.

No. 468.
Argued April 3, 1962.
Decided June 25, 1962.

William J. Butler and Stanley Geller, New York City, for petitioners.

Bertram B. Daiker, Port Washington, N.Y., for respondents William J. Vitale, Jr., and others, constituting the Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York.

Porter R. Chandler, New York City, for intervenors-respondents, Henry Hollenberg and others.

Page 422

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day:

'Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.'

This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and

Page 423

legislative powers over the State's public school system.1 These 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.'

Shortly after the practice of reciting the Regents' prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of ten pupils brought this action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. Among other things, these parents challenged the constitutionality of both the state law authorizing the School District to direct the use of prayer in public schools and the School District's regulation ordering the recitation of this particular prayer on the ground that these actions of official governmental agencies violate that part of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution which commands that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'—a command which was 'made applicable to the State of New York by the Fourteenth Amendment of the said Constitution.' The New York Court of Appeals, over the dissents of Judges Dye and Fuld, sustained an order of the lower state courts which had upheld the power of New York to use the Regents' prayer as a part of the daily procedures of its public schools so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection.2

Page 424

We granted certiorari to review this important decision involving rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.3

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. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been

Page 425

religious, none of the respondents has denied this and the trial court expressly so found:

'The religious nature of prayer was recognized by Jefferson and has been concurred in by theological writers, the United States Supreme Court and state courts and administrative officials, including New York's Commissioner of Education. A committee of the New York Legislature has agreed.

'The Board of Regents as amicus curiae, the respondents and intervenors all concede the religious nature of prayer, but seek to distinguish this prayer because it is based on our spiritual heritage. * * *'4

The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America. The Book of Common Prayer,

Page 426

which was created under governmental direction and which was approved by Acts of Parliament in 1548 and 1549,5 set out in minute detail the accepted form and content of prayer and other religious ceremonies to be used in the established, tax-supported Church of England.6 The controversies over the Book and what should be its content repeatedly threatened to disrupt the peace of that country as the accepted forms of prayer in the established church changed with the views of the particular ruler that happened to be in control at the time.7 Powerful groups representing some of the varying religious views of the people struggled among themselves to impress their particular views upon the Government and

Page 427

obtain amendments of the Book more suitable to their respective notions of how religious services should be conducted in order that the official religious establishment would advance their particular religious beliefs.8 Other groups, lacking the necessary political power to influence the Government on the matter, decided to leave England and its established church and seek freedom in America from England's governmentally ordained and supported religion.

It is an unfortunate fact of history that when some of the very groups which had most strenuously opposed the established Church of England found themselves sufficiently in control of colonial governments in this country to write their own prayers into law, they passed laws making their own religion the official religion of their respective colonies.9 Indeed, as late as the time of the Revolu-

Page 428

tionary War, there were established churches in at least eight of the thirteen former colonies and established religions in at least four of the other five.10 But the successful Revolution against English political domination was shortly followed by intense opposition to the practice of establishing religion by law. This opposition crystallized rapidly into an effective political force in Virginia where the minority religious groups such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Quakers and Baptists had gained such strength that the adherents to the established Episcopal Church were actually a minority themselves. In 1785—1786, those opposed to the established Church, led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who, though themselves not members of any of these dissenting religious groups, opposed all religious establishments by law on grounds of principle, obtained the enactment of the famous 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' by which all religious groups were placed on an equal footing so far as the State was concerned.11 Similar though less far-reaching

Page 429

legislation was being considered and passed in other States.12

By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was a widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of Church and State. These people knew, some of them from bitter personal experience, that one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government's placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services. They knew the anguish, handship and bitter strife that could come when zealous religious groups struggled with one another to obtain the Government's stamp of approval from each King, Queen, or Protector that came to temporary power. The Constitution was intended to avert a part of this danger by leaving the government of this country in the hands of the people rather than in the hands of any monarch. But this safeguard was not enough. Out Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say—

Page 430

that the people's religions must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office. Under that Amendment's prohibition against governmental establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.

There...

To continue reading

Request your trial
531 practice notes
  • Ingebretsen v. Jackson Public School Dist., No. 3:94-cv-411WS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • September 2, 1994
    ...forbids teachers and nonstudents from leading prayers at the schools. See Weisman, 505 U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2657; Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 1264, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962). Missing from the statute is any "opt out" provision which would permit students who are oppos......
  • Peck v. Upshur County Bd. of Educ., No. 96-2544
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 14, 1998
    ...and the avoidance of "endorsement" of religion. See, e.g., Schempp, 374 U.S. at 222, 83 S.Ct. 1560 ("neutrality"); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 436, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962) ("endorsement"). Recently, however, these words have been used to denominate two competing tests for det......
  • Sherbert v. Verner, No. 526
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1963
    ...under the 'Establishment' Clause which have reached this Court are few in number.'1 The most recent are last Term's Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601, and this Term's Schempp and Murray cases, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560. I am convinced that no liberty is more esse......
  • Skoros v. City of New York, Docket No. 04-1229-CV.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 2, 2006
    ...does here, that the non-educational use of religious symbols in public schools is constitutionally acceptable. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962), the Court addressed a mandate from the New York State Board of Regents directing public school students to re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
519 cases
  • Ingebretsen v. Jackson Public School Dist., No. 3:94-cv-411WS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • September 2, 1994
    ...forbids teachers and nonstudents from leading prayers at the schools. See Weisman, 505 U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2657; Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 1264, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962). Missing from the statute is any "opt out" provision which would permit students who are oppos......
  • Peck v. Upshur County Bd. of Educ., No. 96-2544
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 14, 1998
    ...and the avoidance of "endorsement" of religion. See, e.g., Schempp, 374 U.S. at 222, 83 S.Ct. 1560 ("neutrality"); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 436, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962) ("endorsement"). Recently, however, these words have been used to denominate two competing tests for det......
  • Sherbert v. Verner, No. 526
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1963
    ...under the 'Establishment' Clause which have reached this Court are few in number.'1 The most recent are last Term's Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601, and this Term's Schempp and Murray cases, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560. I am convinced that no liberty is more esse......
  • Skoros v. City of New York, Docket No. 04-1229-CV.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 2, 2006
    ...does here, that the non-educational use of religious symbols in public schools is constitutionally acceptable. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962), the Court addressed a mandate from the New York State Board of Regents directing public school students to re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • ESTABLISHMENT'S POLITICAL PRIORITY TO FREE EXERCISE.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989) (striking down a Texas statute that exempted religious periodicals from sales tax). (95) Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (199......
  • Prisoners' Rights and the Rehnquist Court Era
    • United States
    • Prison Journal, The Nbr. 87-4, December 2007
    • December 1, 2007
    ...of Texas Press. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 125 S.Ct. 2113 (2005).Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546 (1941).Falzerano v. Collins, 535 F.Supp. 800 (D.N.J. 1982).Farmer v. ......
  • POLITICAL TRUST, SOCIAL TRUST, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
    • United States
    • Constitutional Commentary Vol. 36 Nbr. 2, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...First Amendment); Torcaso v. Walkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) (First Amendment bars religious tests for public office); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (requirement to recite government-written prayer in public schools violates First Amendment's Establishment Clause); Gideon v. Wainwright,......
  • Separating Church and State or Guaranteeing Religious Expression?
    • United States
    • Review of Public Personnel Administration Nbr. 22-4, December 2002
    • December 1, 2002
    ...(1940).Connick v. Meyers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,473 U.S. 788 (1985).Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).Epperson, R. F. (1996). Protecting the rights of public employees under TitleVII and theFree Exercise Clause. Missouri Law Review,61, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT