By Mara McPhail ‘28

Engel v. Vitale was one of the first Supreme Court cases to directly connect the Establishment Clause to public school classrooms. The Establishment Clause, encased within the First Amendment of the Constitution, prevents the government from making any law officially establishing a religion. This ruling set an important precedent of separating church and religion from American public education. 

Chief Justice Earl Warren’s career started with a legislative aide position, and he worked his way up, eventually becoming the district attorney of Alameda County, California. During this time he established himself as tough on corruption and crime. Eventually he assumed the role of the Attorney General of California, where, to his later regret, aided in the relocation and detainment of the Japanese-American population to “relocation centers.” Warren continued on to represent the people of California as their governor for three terms. Later, two failed presidential campaigns led to his support for Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower. His loyalty paid off when, following the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson in 1953, Warren was nominated and confirmed in 1954. During his time on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren advocated for “all the people.”

The Warren Court era is viewed as one of the most transformative Supreme Court periods. Its two main principles of a living constitution and return to rights discourse led to a number of landmark decisions that focused on protecting those considered “Others.”Groups in America that had been previously overlooked, ignored, taken advantage of, and persecuted. Brown v. The Board of Education was one of many cases that reinterpreted constitutional elements to fit current circumstances and evolving opinions. The Warren Court represented the idea that a constitution, if it is to last, must adapt to changing views and national situations and environments. This mindset led to new applications of the Bill of Rights, placing more restrictions on individual states in order to protect the rights of the people. This new revolutionary mindset implemented by the Warren Court touched back on the “natural and unalienable rights" that are the backbone of the Declaration of Independence. 

In November 1951, the New York State Board of Regents implemented the voluntary recitation of the Regents' Prayer within public schools at the start of the day as part of their Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools. The prayer read “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” Following the establishment of this practice in 1959, Steven Engel, a parent in New Hyde Park, New York, along with a group of parents, sued William Vitale, the President of the School Board. Arguing that the Regents Prayer violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and its application to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment states that “Nor shall any state …deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The New York State Supreme Court first heard the case in 1959 and sided with the defendants, allowing the continued implementation of the Regents Prayer in public schools. This decision was affirmed by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division in 1960, which argued, “The state is not imposing a religious belief by using this prayer.” The decision was again affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals in 1961, arguing that the First Amendment rights were not violated as there was enough separation between the church and state. Each decision leading up to the United States Supreme Court placed a heavy emphasis on voluntary participation. In April 1962, Engel’s case was finally heard by the Supreme Court. 

Engel V. Vitale was an important decision that further defined the line dividing between church and state. The question was: Does a school-sponsored non-denominational prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? In a 6-1 majority decision written by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court answered yes. A law requiring the implementation of the Regents' prayer within public schools violated the Establishment Clause, as the prayer was written by government officials as part of a government program with the goal of increasing religious beliefs. Justice Potter Stewart, on the other hand, believed the court’s decision minimized the importance of the nation’s spiritual heritage. Stewart argued that religious traditions that have been historically a part of government functions deserve a heavier consideration. His reasoning included the “One nation under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance, In God we trust printed on American currency, and the opening of the House and the Senate with prayer. 

Engel V. Vitale was not the first case the Supreme Court ruled on that interpreted the religious freedoms of the Constitution as it applied to the states. For example, Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District No. 17, Champaign County, in 1948, constitutionalized the wall separating the church and the state.  This 8-1 majority decision, written by Justice Black, held that the use of the public school system for religious classes violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case made the First Amendment applicable to the state of New York. This allowed Engel v. Vitale to set the precedent that optional and denominationally neutral prayer in public classrooms violated the application of the First Amendment's establishment clause to the state of New York, and by extension, all states. 

Engel V. Vitale is considered one of the most unpopular decisions in Supreme Court history. Engel, in addition to the rulings of Abington Township (Pa) v. Schemp and Murray V. Baltimore School Board in 1963, which declared Bible readings and recitations of the Lord’s prayer in classrooms under school board direction unconstitutional, the court faced intense public and congressional backlash. A movement grew that supported the reversal of both the 1962 and 1963 decisions through an amendment to the Constitution, championed by New York Representative Frank J. Becker. During the time of the 88th congressional session, one hundred and fifty-one measures to reverse the Court’s decision on prayer and Bible readings in schools through an amendment were introduced and sent to the House Judiciary Committee. During that same period, the Senate produced nine similar measures that were pushed to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The public outcry was made known as well. A New York Times report showed that the negative mail received by the Court was the “largest instance in tribunal history.”. A letter-writing campaign organized by Project America, a descendant of the Liberty Lobby, also resulted in a record amount of mail being sent to Congress. 

Engel, along with the similar decisions of 1963, was an instance of the Court protecting their interpretation of the Constitution in a manner that directly contrasted with a national majority. A 1962 Gallup poll revealed that 80% of a national sample of parents with children attending public schools approved of religious observances in public schools. This case is a prime example of how the Warren Court interpreted the Constitution in ways that clashed with a popular majority. Instead, they utilized judicial review to protect the individual rights of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” The Warren Court rebelled against the majoritarian nature of the Supreme Court.

Despite its unpopularity, the Court’s ruling in Engel v. Vitale was one in a long string of cases that worked to limit the encroachment of religious practices into public education. This was the first case in which the Court had explicitly banned lead prayer in public schools, contributing to an important precedent in finding a balance between religious freedom and preventing the establishment of a government-supported religion. As long as the United States continues to find a balance between a secular government, preventing establishment, and protecting free practice, Engel V. Vitale will remain relevant. 

Mara McPhail is a sophomore majoring in political science and economics.

Sources

Ball, H., & Horwitz, M. J. (2000). The Warren Court and the pursuit of justice: A critical issue. The American Historical Review, 105(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/2652539

Cornell Law School. (2020). Engel v. Vitale (1962). Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/engel_v._vitale_%281962%29

Darko, J. O. (2017). Engel v. Vitale. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/engel-v-vitale/#:~:text=The%20case%20was%20first%20heard,therefore%20violated%20the%20U.S.%20Constitution

United States Court. Facts and case summary - Engel v. Vitale. (n.d.). https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-activities/engel-v-vitale/facts-and-case-summary-engel-v-vitale

Kauper, P. G. (1963). Prayer, public schools and the Supreme Court. Michigan Law Review, 61(6). https://doi.org/10.2307/1286822

Lain, C. B. (2017). God, civic virtue, and the American way: Reconstructing Engel. Stanford Law Review, 6(No.3). https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/fzhwp

Supreme Court Historical Society. (n.d.). Earl Warren. Supreme Court History. https://civics.supremecourthistory.org/article/earl-warren/