Rights of the Accused and Separation of Church and State
Directions: Using www.oyez.com, summarize the case background, legal question, and ruling in
the following Supreme Court cases related to religion and government.
Case: Everson v. Board (1947) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1946/1946_52/
Facts of the Case/Background
Legal Question
Ruling
Case: Engel v. Vitale (1962) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_468
Facts of the Case/Background
Legal Question
Ruling
Case: Abington v. Schempp (1963) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142
Facts of the Case/Background
Legal Question
Ruling
What does it mean to not create a “religion of secularism”? ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Case: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89
Facts of the Case/Background
Legal Question
Ruling
Case: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_236
Facts of the Case/Background
Legal Question
Ruling
Case: Gideon v. Wainwright (1964)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_155
Facts of the Case/Background
Legal Question
Ruling
Case: Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_615
Facts of the Case/Background
Legal Question
Ruling
Case: Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_759
Facts of the Case/Background
Legal Question
Ruling
Rights of the Accused and Separation of Church and State Review Quiz
Directions: Match the Supreme Court case with the ruling. One choice will have two answers.
_____. Everson v. Board
_____. Engel v. Vitale
_____. Abington v. Schempp
_____. Lemon v. Kurtzman
_____. Mapp v. Ohio
_____. Gideon v. Wainwright
_____. Escobedo v. Illinois
_____. Miranda v. Arizona
a. accused persons must be “read the rights” (right to remain silent, anything they say can
be used against them, right to a lawyer before & during interrogation)
b. The first Supreme Court case to directly state that a “wall of separation between church
and state” exists and that it is “high and impregnable”.
c. This case created a constitutional test to determine if a government action violated
“separation of church and state”—1. The law must have a secular (non-religious)
purpose, 2. The law must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3. It must not create
excessive entanglement between government and religion. This case also kept
government money from being used for “church-related educational institutions”
d. criminal courts must provide free lawyers to those who cannot afford it
e. The Supreme Court case that said busing schoolchildren was so far removed from an
establishment of religion that it was not a violation of “separation of church and state” to
give government money to Catholic schools in order to transport children to school
f. evidence seized illegally cannot be used to prosecute accused persons in state courts
g. The state government of NY’s voluntary, nondenominational prayer was struck down as
unconstitutional here, as it allegedly showed that NY was officially approving of religion;
this was the first of many Court cases that disallowed public religious ceremonies
h. In this case, the Court ruled that required Bible reading in a PA school was
unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause
i. an accused person has the right to have a lawyer present while being questioned by police