Abington Township School District v.
Schempp (1963)
Chief Justice: Earl Warren (1953-1969)
Issue/Topic
First Amendment, Establishment of Religion
II. Background and Facts of the Case
In 1949, a Pennsylvania law was set in place, requiring every public school to
start school each day with a reading of ten Bible verses. In the Abington School
District, students in a broadcast class were ordered to read the verses over a
public-address system. This law was challenged by the Schempp family, with
three children who attended Unitarian Sunday school. The father, Edward
Schempp, testified for the first time in a special three-judge federal court. He
stated that he did not agree with certain parts of the Bible and did not want his
children to be privy to these certain verses. Local and state officials immediately
appealed the case to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the Schempp
case as well as another case, Murray v. Curlett, brought about by an atheist
family.
III. The Issue for the Court
The court is trying to determine whether the Pennsylvania law, requiring public
school students to participate in religious in class activities, is violating the
religious freedoms of students which are protected in the First and Fourteenth
Amendments. More specifically, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise
Clause were in question.
IV. Arguments
Schempp (plaintiff) was concerned about the amount of control the school
district had over the religious beliefs of the children. Mr. Schempp argued that
the state-sponsored Bible reading and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer were
unconstitutional establishments of religion which prohibited the free exercise of
religion for him and his children.
The Abington Township School District argued that the forced recitations of the
Lord’s prayers were in no way establishing preference of religion or violating the
“religious conscience of pupils or parents.” The defense also said that the
students were able to interpret the readings in anyway they saw fit due to the
absence of commentary.
Opinion: The Constitutional amendments instituting the Establishment Clause
and the Free Exercise Clause are existent for a reason. It should not be required
that all students, no matter religious belief, should recite from the Bible and read
ten verses each day at school. It should be an option, but never should it be
required because it infringes upon the rights of the children.
V. Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Schempp.
A decision in favor of 8-1.
VI. Reasoning
The majority opinion was written by Justice Tom C. Clark. He stated, “This
Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate [in the
Establishment Clause] has been made wholly applicable to the States by the
Fourteenth Amendment . . . in a series of cases since Cantwell." They decided
that both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause were violated
because the readings and recitations were basically religious ceremonies and
were “intended by the State [of Pennsylvania] to be so.” Justice Clark also argued
that the fact that parents were able to write notes excusing their child from the
religious ceremonies is irrelevant because it is not preventing the school from
taking such actions which violated the Establishment Clause.
The only dissent was that of Justice Potter Stewart. He disagreed with the
majority’s opinion that the Establishment Clause took precedent over the Free
Exercise Clause. He believed that the main component was whether the state had
actually coerced the students into praying or Bible reading. Justice Stewart did
not believe they had.
VII. Personal Opinion
If I were the Judge in this case I probably would have sided with Mr. Schempp as
well. It specifically states in the First Amendment of the Constitution that
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” First of all, the state of Pennsylvania was
wrong in creating the law forcing all public schools to make sure all students
participated in the reading of ten Bible verses every day. This can easily be
described as an establishment of religion. Second, the rights of each student were
violated by being forced to read the Bible and recite the Lord’s Prayer. Although
the students had an option to interpret these religious acts in anyway they felt fit,
they were still forced to participate, and they were still being stripped of the
“free exercise thereof”. This statement especially stands for those students who
do not believe in the existence of God, atheists, like the Murray family. Forcing
atheists to read the Bible is most definitely a violation of free exercise rights.
The Supreme Court was correct in siding with Schempp. They evaluated each of
the ways in which the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause may
have or may not have been defied. However, perhaps Justice Potter Stewart may
have been right about the manner in which the Court viewed the case. Did the
state coerce the students into doing such religious practices?
VIII. Historical Significance of the Case
This case has created a more defined concept of separation of church and state. It
had also become such an important component and precedent to cases such as
Board of Education v. Allen and Lemon v. Kurztman. In fact, much of the
proponents to the Lemon test are based on the Abington v. Schempp case.
Related Cases:
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Everson v. Board of Education
McCollum v. Board of Education
Lee v. Weisman
Engel v. Vitale
IX. Citations
"Abington School District v. Schempp." The Free Dictionary By Farlex. Farlex, Inc.,
2011. Web. 30 Apr. 2011. <http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abington+Township+v.+Schempp>.
"Abington School District v. Schempp." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent
College of Law. Oyez, Inc., 2011. Web. 30 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142>.
Corbett, Cale L. "Abington Township School District v. Schempp: The Day God
Was Kicked Out of School." The Secular Web. Internet Infidels, 26 June 1995. Web.
30 Apr. 2011.
<http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/cale_corbett/abington.html>.