The Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was argued on March 29, 2000, in Texas (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The verdict was decided on June 19, 2000 by the Supreme Court. The case questioned the constitutionality of the school’s policy that permitted student-led, student initiated prayer at football games. The Supreme Court justices had to take the Establishment Clause of the first amendment into account when making their decision (Cornell University Law School). The case originated in the Santa Fe Independent School District, located in Texas. The District was against Doe, a Mormon and a Catholic family involved within the District. The purpose of the case was to determine if the school policy was in violation of the first amendment’s Establishment Clause which creates a divide between religion and government. The first amendment freedom of religion was the right at stake in regards to the Establishment Clause that defines a line between church …show more content…
Doe case, Taking place in Texas in the year 2000, ended with a five to four verdict (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The decision was in support of Doe, a Mormon family and a Catholic family that contested the school’s support of prayer at football games. The result of this case restricted the first amendment freedom of religion. The “wall” between religion and government that the Establishment Clause creates was present in this case (Cornell University Law School). The end of this case led to a strong divide between public schools and students’ religious practices. This case caused social changes to occur that affected public schools across America. Other public schools and parents of public school students saw the outcome of this case as an example of the “wall” that exists between church and state and that it will be enforced. Because of this case, many schools changed or abolished their own policies regarding
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
This example of a Supreme Court case shows that the court is not above politics. Even though most Americans, including government officials, practiced some form of Christianity, the judges were not willing to compromise the information in the Constitution for the popular beliefs of individuals. I agree with the Supreme Court in its decision to ban the practice of prayer in public schools. Not only does it violate the Constitution, but it encroaches on our freedom of thought and action. Being excluded from a public classroom because of personal beliefs does not sound just.
In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to include instruction of intelligent design in biology classes violates the United States Constitution by promoting an excessive religious presence in public schools.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case is a litigation that was brought by an atheist father seeking for a determination of the constitutionality of the practice of recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students since it contained the phrase “under God.” The Supreme Court had two major issues to determine i.e. whether Newdow had the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the practice and school board’s policy and whether the phrase “under God” was an infringement of the Establishment Clause of the country’s constitution. In its ruling, the Supreme Court argued that Michael Newdow did not have the legal standing to file the litigation since he was a non-custodial parent.
The court case of Edgewood ISD et al. v. Kirby et al., was a landmark court case that disputed the equality of Texas’ finance policy for public schools’ districts. Landmark court cases involve public rights and liberties which, the Texas Supreme Court decides whether an existing government law is constitutional. The outcome of the Texas Supreme Court ruling on landmark cases effects the lifestyle for all Texas citizens. In Edgewood ISD et al. v. Kirby et al., the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Funds organization (MALDEF) represented the lower-class people. (MALDEF) sued William Kirby, the commissioner of education, for unequal treatment towards lower income school districts. The organization claimed Kirby’s
FACTS: The District Court found that Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD) and the State had operated a segregated school system, within KCMSD. The plaintiff class attorneys sought compensation under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 1988. The District Court awarded fees based on Kansas City market rates, it used current rather than historic market rates to compensate for the delay in payment. Missouri appealed the ruling and the U.S. Court of Appeals judgment was affirmed.
In Minersville School District v. Gobitis 1940, the Court held, in an eight to one decision, that public school children can be compelled to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance while saluting the flag, despite the fact that, as Jehovah Witnesses, it was against their religious beliefs to do so. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett, 1943, also involving Jehovah Witnesses and the refusal to stand to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the Court, in a six to three decision, reversed its ruling in Gobitis. The majority opinion in the Gobitis case was written by Justice Felix Frankfurter. Justice Robert Jackson wrote the majority opinion in the Barnett case. In this essay I will argue that the Court in Barnett was correct in overturning the decision in Gobitis.
The case Elk Grove Unified School District versus Newdow came about when a student parent, Michael Newdow, an atheist, has a disagreement with the Pledge of Allegiance. Elk Grove Unified School District is a public elementary school where teachers begin the day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is considering being voluntary. Under California law, all elementary schools must recite the Pledge of Allegiance once a day unless those student object due to their religion. As stated before, in 1954 the Congressional Act added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow took it upon himself to review the School District policy referring to the religious portion. This caused Michael Newdow to sue in the federal district court in California, stating making students listen to the Pledge of Allegiance, even if the students do not choose to participate to the word “under God” violates the establishment clause of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
Chapter three of Civil Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints inspired me to research today’s issues of school prayer. To understand how we got to where we are today, I first delved into our countries history of court cases pertaining to rulings on prayer in schools. Lastly, to update my audience on how our lives are being affected today, I directed my efforts toward finding current situations. By analyzing these situations, I gained knowledge for a better understanding of why society needs to be aware of these controversies. I don’t think there should be any form of organized prayer in today’s public schools.
In the Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case, Michael Newdow is suing for his daughter being required to say the Pledge of Allegiance while in school. The Newdow family is an Atheist family who disagrees with the phrase, ‘under God‘ stated in the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow disapproved forcing his daughters say the Pledge in class. He also states that this is an Establishment Clause violation in which he does not want the school to be able to control his daughters religion or beliefs. When this case was brought to court it became a debate whether or not the ‘under God‘ statement had any religious meaning. One judge, Justice O’Connor says, “there is whether the phrase ‘under God‘ is either worship or prayer.” Also, O’Connor states that, “the term does not refer to specifically one religion.” When saying the Pledge of Allegiance, students are not doing it because of religious views but to pledge allegiance to their country.
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
Rieff, Burt. "Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty: The School-Prayer Controversy in Alabama, 1962-1985." Alabama Review 3(2001):163. eLibrary. Web. 31 Aug. 2011.
One of these cases includes the Good News Club, a Christian-based youth program, vs. Milford Central Schools case. Despite the fact that this case didn’t rule in favor of religion, it was a ground post for many other court cases for holding religious based clubs on school grounds. The club was refused the right to hold meetings at the Milford Central Middle School while other clubs could. The state court ruled against the club and an ap...
The Supreme Court's previous last major school-prayer ruling was announced in 1992, and barred clergy-led prayers at public school graduation ceremonies. "The Constitution forbids the state to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation," the court said then. Many viewed the ruling as a strong reaffirmation of the highest court's 1962 decision banning organized, officially sponsored prayers from public schools.
The issue went to the supreme court of the United States which ruled that the prayer was not constitutional.