Engel v. Vitale (1962)

In the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale (1962) (also referred to as the Regents' Prayer Case), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the composition and mandatory recitation of a short nondenominational prayer written by the New York Board of Regents, an administrative body overseeing the quality in New York State public schools. The appellants, parents Lawrence Roth, David Lichtenstein, Monroe Lerner, Lenore Lyons, and Steven Engel, alleged that requiring public school students to recite the Regents' prayer—written in 1958 by the Regents, specifically for use in New York State classrooms—violated both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The prayer read, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” Those defending the prayer argued that it was written to be inoffensive to those who were compelled to recite it. They stressed that the law required schools to have a policy for excusing students who wanted to opt out of praying. The lower court held that the prayer was constitutional since students could opt out of the prayer if their parents objected to it.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that it was no part of the government to compose official prayers. Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black argued that the Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, “is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion, whether those laws operate directly to coerce non-observing individuals or not.” Harkening back to the founding era, Black cautioned that the “very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many … colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America.” Indeed, he wrote,

Although six justices concurred and one dissented, two justices—Justice Felix Frankfurter and Justice Byron White—did not participate. The landmark decision created a political firestorm and had a tremendous polarizing political effect across the United States. Those who favored the decision emphasized the fact that it did not abolish individual prayer in school; it only banned public schools from composing and compelling recitation of prayers. Those criticizing the decision could not understand why the Court would ban an established practice supported by the majority of the American populace. Many members of Congress expressed outrage at the Court's conclusions and introduced constitutional amendments in response, while many school districts simply refused to comply with the court's ruling. The ruling ultimately helped to fuel an intense conservative opposition movement, which grew in size and scope to include the majority of the religious Right, as it opposed “secular humanism”.