Engel v. Vitale

1962 United States Supreme Court case.mw-parser-output .infobox-subbox{padding:0;border:none;margin:-3px;width:auto;min-width:100%;font-size:100%;clear:none;float:none;background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .infobox-3cols-child{margin:auto}.mw-parser-output .infobox .navbar{font-size:100%}body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-header,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-subheader,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-above,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-title,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-image,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-full-data,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-below{text-align:center}

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools, due to violation of the First Amendment.[1] The ruling has been the subject of intense debate.[2][3][4]

Background[edit]

In November 1951 the Board of Regents of New York proposed that public schools start the day with a non-denominational prayer. School boards were authorized, but not required, to adopt the recommendation. It became known as The Regents’ prayer because it was written by the New York State Board of Regents.[5] The prayer was twenty-two words that went as follows:

.mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 32px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}

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

The proposal was adopted by the Herricks Union Free School District in July 1958. Students could opt-out with a parent’s signature. Five parents of public school students attending Herricks High School in New Hyde Park sued the school board president William J. Vitale, Jr challenging the constitutionality of the Regents Prayer.[5] Two of the plaintiffs were Jewish, one was an atheist, one was Unitarian church member, and one was a member of the New York Society for Ethical Culture. Steven I. Engel, a Jewish man, became the named plaintiff.[6][7]

The plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The governments of twenty-two states submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court urging affirmance of the New York Court of Appeals decision that upheld the constitutionality of the prayer.[8] The American Jewish Committee, the Synagogue Council of America, and the American Ethical Union each submitted briefs urging the Court to instead reverse and rule that the prayer was unconstitutional.[9]

Lower court history[edit]

Bernard S. Meyer wrote the opinion for the trial court ruling that the Establishment Clause “does not prohibit the noncompulsory saying of the Regents’ prayer in the public schools”. Meyer’s reasoning was based on the “accepted practice” at the time the amendments were adopted:[10][11]

The reason the ‘establishment’ clause is not breached is … because traditionally, and particularly at the time of the adoption of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, this was the accepted practice.

Aside from the historical analysis, the trial court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Zorach v. Clauson:[10]

The Zorach case holds that the Constitution does not require separation in every and all respects and, as we have seen, constitutional history confirms a tradition of prayer, including prayer in the schools…the instant prayer, at least when its recitation is limited to daily exercises at the opening of school, must be classified as outside McCollum’s proscription of religious instruction and within Zorach’s sanction as an accomodation.

The Appellate Division for the Second Department affirmed the trial court’s judgment in a per curiam opinion. George Beldock wrote a separate opinion, concurring in part, and dissenting in part. Beldock did not agree with the trial courts reasoning that morning prayer at public schools was an “accepted practice” at the time the amendments were adopted.[12] Citing Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, supported by additional reasoning based on Zorach v. Clauson, Beldock argued that the Regent’s Prayer merely reaffirmed “that this is a religious nation”.[10] He said the Establishment Clause was not violated because “an accomodation of secular education to the voluntary prayer or confession of religious faith” was not a religious teaching or instruction.[12]

After losing in the state courts, the parents filed a federal appeal, which they lost. The divided New York Court of Appeals agreed with the lower state courts that the Regents’ prayer could be read in public schools without violating the Establishment Clause as long as student participation was voluntary.[13] The courts said the prayer was constitutional because of the opt-out provision.[14]

Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

In a 6–1 decision, the Supreme Court held that reciting government-written prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[9]

Majority opinion[edit]

Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black wrote that recitation of a government-written prayer by school children was “a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause” that breached the “Constitutional wall of separation between Church and State” even though the prayer is “non-denominational” and voluntary.[15][3]

Although the Court had recognized a “wall of separation” between church and state in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947), McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) and Zorach v. Clauson (1952), Justice Black did not cite any of them in reaching his decision, relying solely on historical analysis.[16][17] The opinion included a lengthy history of religious freedom, concluding:[18]

It is a matter of history that this 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.

He compared the government-written Regents’ prayer to the Book of Common Prayer which was the government authorized prayer book of the Church of England.[a] The Court said coercion was not required by the Establishment Clause, but that a form of indirect coercion existed even though the prayer was non-mandatory:
[21]

When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.

Justice Black’s analysis that the separation of Church and state “stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holt to permit it’s ‘unhallowed perversion’ by a civil magistrate” quoted directly from James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance.[b][5][22]

Douglas concurrence[edit]

In a concurring opinion, Justice Douglas argued that the Establishment Clause is also violated when the government grants financial aid to religious schools.[2] He stated a view of the First Amendment that required the government to be neutral in religious matters:[15]

The philosophy is that the atheist or agnostic—the non-believer—is entitled to go his own way. The philosophy is that if government interferes in matters spiritual, it will be a divisive force.

The concurrence was highly criticized. Douglas argued that all religious exercise in public settings was unconstitutional, foreshadowing the Court’s decision in Abington v. Schempp the following year which took a neutrality view of Establishment: “In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality”.

Stewart dissent[edit]

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stewart contended that the Establishment Clause was originally written to abolish the idea of a state-sponsored church,[2] and not to stop a non-mandatory “brief non-denominational prayer”.[9]

Reactions[edit]

.mw-parser-output .hatnote{font-style:italic}.mw-parser-output div.hatnote{padding-left:1.6em;margin-bottom:0.5em}.mw-parser-output .hatnote i{font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .hatnote+link+.hatnote{margin-top:-0.5em}Further information: School Prayer Amendment

The negative reaction of Congress was overwhelming. Only John Lindsay and Emanuel Celler supported the decision. Frank J. Becker called it “the most tragic decision in the history of the United States” and introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to allow religious exercises in public schools.[23] There was already a lot of anger towards the Warren Court, especially among white Protestants in the South and Midwest, for its school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education. After the Engel decision, some members of Congress, like George Andrews of Alabama and James Eastland of Mississippi, made references to both desegregation and prayer in schools in their attacks on the Warren Court.[23][24]

The Christian Century was critical of the southern politicians who opposed the ruling, accusing them of weaponizing the school prayer controversy “to whip the court for its desegregation of public schools”.[25] New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis wrote that politicians were trying to show “how equally wrong the Court had been to outlaw segregation”.[26]

The Senate Judiciary Committee headed by James Eastland held hearings on five measures to overturn the Engel decision. Bishop James Pike, a prominent religious moderate and lawyer, opposed the Court’s broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause because it prohibited non-denominational prayer. He testified in support of a constitutional amendment that would limit the establishment of religion to “the recognition as an Established Church or any denomination, sect, or organized religious association”.[23][25]

While internal debate continued within the Jewish community about the role of religion in the public square, the American Jewish Congress called the case “a great milestone”, and the decision was celebrated by most American Jewish groups.[27][28]

The National Association of Evangelicals, the National Council of Churches and The Christian Century opposed proposals to overturn Engel by amendment.[25][29] Supportive of the decision, The Christian Century noted that Engel had not decided the question of prayer in public schools because its holding was limited to a government-drafted prayer. Justice Clark’s public statements distancing the majority opinion from Douglas’ concurrence initially gave supporters of school prayer some hope that the Court would decline to issue a broad ruling in upcoming school prayer cases, but recitation of The Lord’s Prayer in public school was ruled unconstitutional in Schempp the following year.[25]

Subsequent developments[edit]

.mw-parser-output .ambox{border:1px solid #a2a9b1;border-left:10px solid #36c;background-color:#fbfbfb;box-sizing:border-box}.mw-parser-output .ambox+link+.ambox,.mw-parser-output .ambox+link+style+.ambox,.mw-parser-output .ambox+link+link+.ambox,.mw-parser-output .ambox+.mw-empty-elt+link+.ambox,.mw-parser-output .ambox+.mw-empty-elt+link+style+.ambox,.mw-parser-output .ambox+.mw-empty-elt+link+link+.ambox{margin-top:-1px}html body.mediawiki .mw-parser-output .ambox.mbox-small-left{margin:4px 1em 4px 0;overflow:hidden;width:238px;border-collapse:collapse;font-size:88%;line-height:1.25em}.mw-parser-output .ambox-speedy{border-left:10px solid #b32424;background-color:#fee7e6}.mw-parser-output .ambox-delete{border-left:10px solid #b32424}.mw-parser-output .ambox-content{border-left:10px solid #f28500}.mw-parser-output .ambox-style{border-left:10px solid #fc3}.mw-parser-output .ambox-move{border-left:10px solid #9932cc}.mw-parser-output .ambox-protection{border-left:10px solid #a2a9b1}.mw-parser-output .ambox .mbox-text{border:none;padding:0.25em 0.5em;width:100%}.mw-parser-output .ambox .mbox-image{border:none;padding:2px 0 2px 0.5em;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .ambox .mbox-imageright{border:none;padding:2px 0.5em 2px 0;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .ambox .mbox-empty-cell{border:none;padding:0;width:1px}.mw-parser-output .ambox .mbox-image-div{width:52px}html.client-js body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .mbox-text-span{margin-left:23px!important}@media(min-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .ambox{margin:0 10%}}

Engel has been the basis for several subsequent decisions limiting government-directed prayer in school.[9] In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the Supreme Court ruled Alabama’s law permitting one minute for prayer or meditation was unconstitutional. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the court prohibited clergy-led prayer at middle school graduation ceremonies. Lee v. Weisman, in turn, was a basis for Santa Fe ISD v. Doe (2000), in which the Court extended the ban to school-organized student-led prayer at high school football games in which a majority of students voted in favor of the prayer.[30]

A year after the 1962 ruling the Court decided in Abington School District v. Schempp that recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and Bible reading in school were unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.

Notes[edit]

.mw-parser-output .reflist{font-size:90%;margin-bottom:0.5em;list-style-type:decimal}.mw-parser-output .reflist .references{font-size:100%;margin-bottom:0;list-style-type:inherit}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns-2{column-width:30em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns-3{column-width:25em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns{margin-top:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns ol{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns li{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .reflist-upper-alpha{list-style-type:upper-alpha}.mw-parser-output .reflist-upper-roman{list-style-type:upper-roman}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-alpha{list-style-type:lower-alpha}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-greek{list-style-type:lower-greek}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-roman{list-style-type:lower-roman}

^ The 1549 Book of Common Prayer was co-authored by Thomas Cranmer and established as the sole legal form of worship in England by the Act of Uniformity 1548. It denied the doctrine of Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and was opposed by Catholics. Puritans complained that it still wore “the rags of Popery” by forbidding extempore prayer.[19] The act was coercive, imposing escalating punishments, up to life imprisonment, for non-compliant members of the clergy. The 1552 Book of Common Prayer was revised to make it more Protestant, but was quickly withdrawn when Mary, Queen of Scots acceded to the throne in 1553. The revised Elizabethan prayer book was approved in 1559 by the, until it was supressed by Parliament in 1645, then restored again after the Interregnum that began with the execution of Charles I. The Church of England remained under government control until canonical authority was vested in the General Synod by the Worship and Doctrine Measure of 1974.[20]

^ “Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.”

References[edit]

^ .mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit;word-wrap:break-word}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation:target{background-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133)}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg”)right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg”)right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg”)right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg”)right 0.1em center/12px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;color:#d33}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{color:#d33}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#3a3;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right{padding-right:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflink{font-weight:inherit}Hudson, David L. Jr. “Engel v. Vitale”. www.mtsu.edu. Retrieved May 18, 2021.

^ a b c “Facts and Case Summary – Engel v. Vitale”. United States Courts. Retrieved February 16, 2019.

^ a b “Engel v. Vitale”. Oyez. Retrieved October 13, 2021.

^ “Engel v. Vitale (1962)”. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved May 18, 2021.

^ a b c Leo Pfeffer, The New York Regents’ Prayer Case (Engel v. Vitale), 4 J. Church & St.
150 (1962).

^ David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment scholar (August 26, 2005). “Plaintiff in 1962 landmark school-prayer case reflects on his role”. www.firstamendmentcenter.org. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2015.

^ Solomon, Stephen D. (January 16, 2009). Ellery’s Protest: How One Young Man Defied Tradition and Sparked the Battle Over School Prayer. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472033454.

^ The amicus curiae brief was submitted by the attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

^ a b c d Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

^ a b c Kurland, Philip B. (1962). “The Regents’ Prayer Case: “Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying…””. The Supreme Court Review. 1962: 1–33. doi:10.1086/scr.1962.3108791. Retrieved March 8, 2024.

^ Matter of Engel v. Vitale 11 A.D.2d 340 (1960), Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department)

^ a b Schumb, Joseph G. “Religion in the Public Schools: Past and Future Institute of Contemporary Law”. Santa Clara Law Review. 3.

^ Arthur E. Sutherland Jr. “Establishment According to Engel,” 76 Harvard Law Review 25 (November 1962): 25-52

^ Shultz, David (2005). The Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 9780816067398.

^ a b Johnson, John W. (2001). Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415937566.

^ Hall, Kermit; Jr, James W. Ely (March 11, 2009). The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190452247.

^ “Wall of Separation”. The Free Speech Center. Retrieved March 6, 2024.

^ “Church-State Separation: A Serpentine Wall?”. ChristianityToday.com. July 20, 1962. p. 967. Retrieved March 6, 2024.

^ Bruyn, Frans De (May 20, 2021). The Cambridge Companion to Eighteenth-Century Thought. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107082489.

^ Hall, Simon (December 7, 2018). The Hutchinson Illustrated Encyclopedia of British History. Routledge. p. 83. ISBN 9781135934859.

^ Feldman, Stephen M. (January 20, 2000). American Legal Thought from Premodernism to Postmodernism: An Intellectual Voyage. Oxford University Press. p. 141. ISBN 9780190283162.

^ Holzer, Shannon (October 11, 2023). The Palgrave Handbook of Religion and State Volume I: Theoretical Perspectives. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-35151-8.

^ a b c William M. Beaney; Edward N. Beiser, “Prayer and Politics: The Impact of Engel and Schempp on the Political Process” 13 Journal of Public Law 475 (1964): 475-503

^ Fraser, James (September 15, 2016). Between Church and State: Religion and Public Education in a Multicultural America. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 152. ISBN 9781421420585.

^ a b c d Green, Steven K. (2019). The Third Disestablishment: Church, State, and American Culture, 1940-1975. Oxford University Press. p. 269-272. ISBN 9780190908140.

^ Dierenfield, Bruce J. (2007). The Battle Over School Prayer: How Engel V. Vitale Changed America. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700615261.

^ Diner, Hasia R. (May 30, 2006). The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520248489.

^ Dalin, David G. (May 24, 2022). Jews and American Public Life: Essays on American Jewish History and Politics. Academic Studies Press. ISBN 9781644698839.

^ School Prayer: Hearings Before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, Eighty-Ninth Congress, Second Session, on Aug. 1-5, 8, 1966. US Government printing office. 1966. p. 35.

^ “Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)”. Justia Law. Retrieved March 7, 2024.

External links[edit]

Works related to Engel v. Vitale at Wikisource
Text of Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Government case review

.mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:”: “}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:” · “;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:” (“;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:”)”;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:” “counter(listitem)”a0 “}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:” (“counter(listitem)”a0 “}.mw-parser-output .navbox{box-sizing:border-box;border:1px solid #a2a9b1;width:100%;clear:both;font-size:88%;text-align:center;padding:1px;margin:1em auto 0}.mw-parser-output .navbox .navbox{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .navbox+.navbox,.mw-parser-output .navbox+.navbox-styles+.navbox{margin-top:-1px}.mw-parser-output .navbox-inner,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup{width:100%}.mw-parser-output .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-title,.mw-parser-output .navbox-abovebelow{padding:0.25em 1em;line-height:1.5em;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .navbox-group{white-space:nowrap;text-align:right}.mw-parser-output .navbox,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup{background-color:#fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-list{line-height:1.5em;border-color:#fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-list-with-group{text-align:left;border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid}.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-group,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-image,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-list{border-top:2px solid #fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title{background-color:#ccf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-title{background-color:#ddf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-abovebelow{background-color:#e6e6ff}.mw-parser-output .navbox-even{background-color:#f7f7f7}.mw-parser-output .navbox-odd{background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ul,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ul{padding:0.125em 0}.mw-parser-output .navbox .navbar{display:block;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title .navbar{float:left;text-align:left;margin-right:0.5em}

Strict scrutiny

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010)
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015)

Vagueness

Smith v. Goguen (1974)
Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus (1987)
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018)

Symbolic speech
versus conduct

Stromberg v. California (1931)
United States v. O’Brien (1968)
Cohen v. California (1971)
Spence v. Washington (1974)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)
Dallas v. Stanglin (1989)
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
United States v. Eichman (1990)
Barnes v. Glen Theatre (1991)
City of Erie v. Pap’s A. M. (2000)
Virginia v. Black (2003)

Content-based
restrictions

Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965)
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
Boos v. Barry (1988)
Butterworth v. Smith (1990)
Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Crime Victims Board (1991)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC (2022)

Content-neutral
restrictions

Schneider v. New Jersey (1939)
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986)
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)
Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)

Compelled speech

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette (1943)
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974)
Wooley v. Maynard (1977)
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California (1986)
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995)
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006)
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018)
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024)

Compelled subsidy
of others’ speech

Ry. Emps. Department v. Hanson (1956)
Machinists v. Street (1961)
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977)
Ellis v. Railway Clerks (1984)
Chicago Local Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986)
Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1988)
Keller v. State Bar of California (1990)
Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n (1991)
Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)
Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000)
United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n (2005)
Davenport v. Washington Education Ass’n (2007)
Locke v. Karass (2008)
Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association (2009)
Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000 (2012)
Harris v. Quinn (2014)
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2016)
Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

Government grants
and subsidies

Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington (1983)
Rust v. Sullivan (1991)
National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998)
Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez (2001)
USAID v. Alliance for Open Society I (2013)
USAID v. Alliance for Open Society II (2020)

Government
as speaker

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009)
Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015)
Matal v. Tam (2017)
Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
Houston Community College System v. Wilson (2022)
Shurtleff v. City of Boston (2022)
Vidal v. Elster (2024)

Loyalty oaths

American Communications Ass’n v. Douds (1950)
Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951)
Speiser v. Randall (1958)
Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967)
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb (1974)

School speech

Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Community School Dist. (1969, substantial disruption)
Healy v. James (1972)
Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)
Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Westside Community Board of Ed. v. Mergens (1990)
Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia (1995)
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. (2001)
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
Morse v. Frederick (2007)
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021)
Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)

Public employees

Pickering v. Board of Education (1968)
Perry v. Sindermann (1972)
Arnett v. Kennedy (1974)
Elrod v. Burns (1976)
Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Board of Ed. v. Doyle (1977)
Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. (1979)
Smith v. Arkansas State Hwy. Employees Local (1979)
Connick v. Myers (1983)
Rankin v. McPherson (1987)
Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990)
Waters v. Churchill (1994)
Board of Comm’rs, Wabaunsee Cty. v. Umbehr (1996)
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. (2001)
Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)
Lane v. Franks (2014)
Heffernan v. City of Paterson (2016)
Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (2022)

Hatch Act and
similar laws

Ex parte Curtis (1882)
United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)
U.S. Civil Service Comm’n v. National Ass’n of Letter Carriers (1973)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)

Licensing and
restriction of speech

Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n of Ohio (1915)
Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
Kunz v. New York (1951)
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)
Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown (1957)
NAACP v. Button (1963)
Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Bar (1964)
Freedman v. Maryland (1965)
Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn. (1967)
Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. (1981)
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind (1988)
Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992)

Commercial speech

Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations (1973)
Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)
Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
In re Primus (1978)
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)
Friedman v. Rogers (1979)
Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm’n (1980)
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
In re R.M.J. (1982)
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n of California (1986)
Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)
Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)
Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind (1988)
State University of New York v. Fox (1989)
Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)
City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)
Edenfield v. Fane (1993)
United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)
Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)
Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)
Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)
Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States (1999)
Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)
United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n (2005)
Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2010)
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
Matal v. Tam (2017)
Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
Vidal v. Elster (2024)

Campaign finance
and political speech

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
California Medical Association v. FEC (1981)
Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981)
FEC v. National Right to Work Committee (1982)
FEC v. National Conservative PAC (1985)
FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986)
Eu v. S.F. Cty. Democratic Cent. Comm. (1989)
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996)
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000)
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001)
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002)
FEC v. Beaumont (2003)
McConnell v. FEC (2003)
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC (2006)
Randall v. Sorrell (2006)
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007)
Davis v. FEC (2008)
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (2011)
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011)
American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock (2012)
McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015)
Thompson v. Hebdon (2019)
FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate (2022)

Anonymous speech

NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
Bates v. City of Little Rock (1960)
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (1982)
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n (1995)
Doe v. Reed (2010)
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021)

State action

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972)
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck (2019)
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (2024)
Murthy v. Missouri

Official retaliation

Hartman v. Moore (2006)
Reichle v. Howards (2012)
Wood v. Moss (2014)
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018)
Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)
Egbert v. Boule (2022)
Gonzalez v. Trevino (2024)
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo (2024)

Boycotts

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982)
FTC v. Superior Ct. TLA (1990)

Prisons

Procunier v. Martinez (1974)
Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union (1977)
Turner v. Safley (1987)
Shaw v. Murphy (2001)
Overton v. Bazzetta (2003)
Beard v. Banks (2006)

<!–esi –>
Retrieved from “https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engel_v._Vitale&oldid=1212511484”

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale

Tags: travel, accomodation, review, news

Engel v. Vitale

Background[edit]

Lower court history[edit]