370 U.S. 421 (1962)
The Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."1
This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and legislative powers over the State's public school system.2 These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools."3
Shortly after the practice of reciting the Regents' prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of ten pupils brought this action in a New York State Court.4 These parents insisted that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children.5
Among other things, these parents challenged the constitutionality of both the state law authorizing the School District to direct the use of prayer in public schools and the School District's regulation ordering the recitation of this particular prayer on the ground that these actions of official governmental agencies violate that part of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution which commands that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"—a command which was "made applicable to the State of New York by the Fourteenth Amendment of the said Constitution."6
The trial court's opinion had made it clear that the Board of Education must set up some sort of procedures to protect those who objected to reciting the prayer.7 The Appellate Division affirmed that of the trial court.8 The New York Court of Appeals, over the dissents of Judges Dye and Fuld, sustained an order of the lower state courts which had upheld the power of New York to use the Regents' prayer as a part of the daily procedures of its public schools so long as the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or his parents' objection.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review this important decision involving rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.10
Whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a state from composing an official prayer and directing its recitation by students in public schools at the start of each school day?11
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a state from composing an official prayer and directing its recitation by students in public schools at the start of each school day.12 This constitutional command means that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.13 The power and prestige of government must not be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say.14
Yes. The Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting under state law, directed recitation of the Regents' prayer composed by the State Board of Regents.15 The parents of ten pupils challenged the state law and regulation as violating the Establishment Clause incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.16 The New York Court of Appeals upheld the practice provided no pupil was compelled to participate.17
This official state composition and direction of prayer in public schools places the power and prestige of government behind a particular religious belief, violating the Establishment Clause even without direct coercion of nonparticipants.18
The New York practice of having students recite the Regents' prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.19 This conclusion follows from the recognition that government should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers.20 Government should leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.21
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Douglas concurred in the judgment reversing the New York Court of Appeals.22 He framed the narrow question as whether New York oversteps when it finances a religious exercise through a public school teacher on the public payroll who leads the prayer.23 Although no student is compelled to participate and the prayer is brief, Douglas maintained that the principle is identical to the use of public funds for congressional or judicial chaplains.24
He observed that government financing of religious exercises inserts a divisive influence into communities.25 He questioned the continuing vitality of Everson v. Board of Education, arguing that the First Amendment commands government neutrality in theology and ritual rather than support for any religious activity.26
Justice Stewart dissented, contending that the majority misapplied the Establishment Clause.27 He argued that permitting willing school children to recite a brief nondenominational prayer does not establish an official religion but instead allows them to share in the spiritual heritage of the nation.28 Stewart pointed to longstanding government practices such as the Court's own opening invocation, congressional chaplains, presidential prayers, the national motto, and the Pledge of Allegiance as evidence that official recognition of dependence on God does not constitute an establishment.29
He concluded that the decision wrongly prohibits school children from joining in prayer while similar expressions continue in other branches of government.30