Abington School District v. Schempp
"Abington School District v. Schempp" is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1963 that addressed the constitutionality of Bible readings in public schools. The case arose when the Schempp family, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged a Pennsylvania law mandating daily Bible verse readings in public schools. The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that such practices constituted an unconstitutional promotion of religion, reinforcing the precedent set in "Engel v. Vitale" the previous year. The ruling emphasized the separation of church and state, asserting that the government should not endorse or sponsor religious activities in public education. While Justice Potter Stewart dissented, arguing for the protection of religious exercise, the majority opinion, delivered by Justice Tom C. Clark, highlighted the need to prevent governmental endorsement of any religion. The decision sparked significant public debate, particularly among religious groups who felt that the ruling interfered with the practice of their faith in educational settings. Overall, "Abington School District v. Schempp" remains a critical case in the ongoing discourse on the intersection of education, religion, and constitutional law in the United States.
Abington School District v. Schempp
Citation: 374 U.S. 203
Date: June 17, 1963
Issue: School prayer
Relevant amendment: First
Significance: This decision reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s 1962 ruling that made it unconstitutional for public schools to sponsor prayers or Bible readings.
Writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Tom C. Clark reiterated the Supreme Court’s position in Engel v. Vitale (1962) that the government could not promote religion by sponsoring public school prayers or Bible readings. In Abington, the American Civil Liberties Union helped the Schempps challenge a Pennsylvania law requiring public schools to begin each day by reading Bible verses. In the companion case, Murray v. Curlett (1963), nationally known atheist Madalyn Murray (later O’Hair) attacked a Baltimore city statute providing for a daily reading in the city schools of the Lord’s Prayer or a passage from the Bible. Unlike the situation in Engel, the government did not write the prayer and used the readings without comment, but the Court still found both laws an impermissible promotion of religion.
Although two new justices participated in Abington, the outcome remained the same as Engel. Justice Potter Stewart wrote the Court’s lone dissent, arguing that the free exercise clause should be given preferred status to avoid inherent conflicts with the establishment clause. The Court sought to minimize criticism by having Clark, a politically moderate southern Presbyterian, write the Court’s opinion and Justices Arthur J. Goldberg (Jewish) and William J. Brennan, Jr. (Roman Catholic) write strong concurrences, but widespread public criticism continued from religious groups accusing the Court of interfering with religion.
