374 U.S. 203, 253–58 (1963)
In 1959 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted a statute requiring that at least ten verses from the Holy Bible be read without comment at the opening of each public school on each school day.1
The statute included a provision allowing any child to be excused upon the written request of a parent or guardian.2 The Schempp family, Unitarian parents residing in Abington Township whose children attended Abington Senior High School, filed suit in federal district court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the statute.3
The exercises at the school involved selected students reading ten verses over the intercom system between 8:15 and 8:30 a.m., followed by recitation of the Lord's Prayer in unison by students in classrooms.4 The exercises were conducted daily under teacher supervision with no prefatory statements or comments.5
A three-judge district court held the statute unconstitutional after hearing testimony from the Schempps and expert witnesses regarding the religious character of the exercises and potential psychological effects on children.6 In 1905 the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City adopted a rule pursuant to Art. 77, § 202 of the Annotated Code of Maryland requiring opening exercises consisting of reading a chapter from the Holy Bible and/or recitation of the Lord's Prayer.7
Madalyn Murray and her son William, professed atheists living in Baltimore, filed suit in state court to compel rescission of the rule after unsuccessful attempts to have it rescinded.8 The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the rule.9 The two cases were consolidated for argument before the Supreme Court because of the similarity of the issues presented.10
In both cases the Bible readings were conducted without comment using versions such as the King James, Douay, or Revised Standard.11 Students could select passages or be excused upon parental request, though the Schempps chose not to seek excusal for their children due to concerns about social stigma.12 Expert testimony was introduced concerning differences between Jewish and Christian scriptures and the potential for harm or divisiveness from reading certain passages without explanation.13 The district court in Schempp made findings that the exercises possessed a devotional and religious character and that the statute preferred the Christian religion.14 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in both cases following appeals from the respective lower court decisions.15
Whether the Pennsylvania statute requiring daily Bible reading in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the States?16
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a State from enacting laws that aid any religion or that prefer one religion over another.17
Yes. The Pennsylvania statute aids religion because the required Bible reading and Lord's Prayer recitation are devotional exercises conducted as part of the school day under teacher supervision in the Schempp case.18 The district court specifically found that the exercises possessed a devotional and religious character while preferring the Christian religion.19
The Pennsylvania statute violates the Establishment Clause.20
Related opinions on this issue
Brennan joined the Court's opinion.21 He agreed that the exercises challenged in these cases violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.22 Brennan emphasized that the history of the Establishment Clause shows that it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church and to prevent the government from aiding one religion over another or aiding religion in general.23
The clause was designed to prevent the kind of governmental involvement in religion that had produced so much strife in Europe and in the American colonies.24 The exercises here involve the State in the prescription of religious exercises for school children.25 This is precisely the kind of involvement that the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent.26
Douglas joined the opinion of the Court and added a few words in explanation.27 He noted that while the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the State may not require of the individual, the Establishment Clause is written in different terms.28 Establishment of a religion can be achieved in several ways.29
The vice of all such arrangements under the Establishment Clause is that the state is lending its assistance to a church's efforts to gain and keep adherents.30 These regimes violate the Establishment Clause in two different ways.31 In each case the State is conducting a religious exercise, and public funds, though small in amount, are being used to promote a religious exercise that only some of the people want and that violates the sensibilities of others.32
Whether the Baltimore school board rule requiring daily Bible reading and recitation of the Lord's Prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the States?33
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a State from enacting laws that aid any religion or that prefer one religion over another.
Yes. The Baltimore rule aids religion because the rule required opening exercises consisting of reading a chapter from the Holy Bible and/or recitation of the Lord's Prayer conducted by the classroom teacher in the Murray case. The religious character of the exercise was admitted by the State even though the case came up on demurrer.34
The Baltimore school board rule violates the Establishment Clause.35
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Harlan
Goldberg agreed with the Court that these exercises violate the Establishment Clause.36 The exercises are religious in character and are prescribed by the State as part of the school program.37 This is an impermissible use of the public schools to aid religion.38
Goldberg also agreed that the excusal provisions do not save the exercises from constitutional infirmity.39 The fact that some students may be excused does not change the religious character of the exercises for those who do participate.40 The First Amendment requires that the State be neutral in matters of religion.41
It may not favor one religion over another, nor may it favor religion over nonreligion.42 The exercises here cross the line of neutrality and therefore violate the Establishment Clause.43
Whether the excusal provisions in the Pennsylvania statute and the Baltimore rule render the challenged exercises constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause?44
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits a State from enacting laws that compel participation in religious exercises against the will of students or parents.45
No. The excusal provisions do not render the exercises constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause because the Schempps chose not to seek excusal due to concerns about social stigma for their children.4647 The exercises were conducted at the opening of the school day in regular classrooms under teacher supervision in both the Schempp and Murray cases.48
The excusal provisions do not render the challenged exercises constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause.49
Related opinions on this issue
Stewart dissented in both cases.50 He believed that the exercises challenged in these cases do not violate the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.51 The exercises consist of the reading of the Bible and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer.52
These are religious exercises, but they are not establishments of religion in the sense in which that term was used in the First Amendment.53 The Establishment Clause was intended to prevent the establishment of an official national church and to prevent the government from preferring one religion over another.54 The exercises here are not coercive.55
Students who do not wish to participate may be excused.56 The fact that some students may feel pressure to participate does not make the exercises unconstitutional.57 The Constitution does not require that the public schools be religion-free zones.58
Whether the practices at issue constitute religious exercises prescribed as part of the curricular activities of students required by law to attend school?59
Yes. The practices constitute religious exercises prescribed as part of the curricular activities because the Bible reading and Lord's Prayer were held in school buildings under the supervision and with the participation of teachers employed in those schools during the school day in both the Schempp and Murray cases. The district court found the exercises were intended by the State to be a religious ceremony.62
The practices at issue constitute religious exercises prescribed as part of the curricular activities of students required by law to attend school.63
Whether the nondenominational character of the exercises or the small amount of time involved affects their constitutionality under the First Amendment?64
The fact that exercises are nondenominational or that the amount of time involved is small does not make the practices constitutional under the Establishment Clause.65
No. The nondenominational character or small amount of time does not affect constitutionality because the exercises were religious in character regardless of the version of the Bible used or the brief duration between 8:15 and 8:30 a.m. in the Schempp case.6667 The district court found that the devotional nature was made apparent by the Bible reading followed immediately by the Lord's Prayer.68
The nondenominational character of the exercises or the small amount of time involved does not affect their constitutionality under the First Amendment.69