Wallace v. Jaffree

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Wallace v Jaffree
ArgueDate=December 4
ArgueYear=1984
DecideDate=June 4
DecideYear=1985
FullName=Wallace, Governor of Alabama, et al. v. Jaffree, et al.
USVol=472
USPage=38
Citation=105 S. Ct. 2479; 86 L. Ed. 2d 29; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 91; 53 U.S.L.W. 4665
Prior=Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Subsequent=
Holding="Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority ... when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."
SCOTUS=1981-1986
Majority=Stevens
JoinMajority=Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell
Concurrence=Powell
Concurrence2=O'Connor
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=Rehnquist
Dissent2=Burger
Dissent3=White
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. I

"Wallace v. Jaffree", ussc|472|38|1985, was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer.

An Alabama law authorized teachers to set aside one minute at the start of each day for a moment of "silent meditation or voluntary prayer," and sometimes the teacher of the classroom asked upon a student to recite some prayers. A parent of three students sued the state, claiming that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The plaintiff had complained that the law instituted compulsory prayer and exposed students to religious indoctrination.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama allowed the practice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that the Alabama law violated constitutional principle. Notably, future Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the Court's Establishment Clause reasoning in the line of cases beginning with "Everson v. Board of Education", 330 U.S. 1 (1947) was flawed in as much as it was based on the writings of Thomas Jefferson, who was not the author of the Clause.

From the court opinion:

::"Section 16-1-20.1 is a law respecting the establishment of religion and thus violates the First Amendment."

::"(a)The proposition that the several States have no greater power to restrain the individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does Congress is firmly embedded in constitutional jurisprudence. The First Amendment was adopted to curtail Congress' power to interfere with the individual's freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience......"

::"(b)One of the well-established criteria for determining the constitutionality of a statute under the Establishment Clause is that the statute must have a secular legislative purpose. "Lemon v. Kurtzman", 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971). The First Amendment requires that a statute must be invalidated if it is entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion."

::"(c)The record here not only establishes that 16-1-20.1's purpose was to endorse religion, it also reveals that the enactment of the statute was not motivated by any clearly secular purpose." "...The State's endorsement, by enactment of 16-1-20.1, of prayer activities at the beginning of each schoolday is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion."

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 472
* Abington School District v. Schempp

External links

* [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html Full text of the opinion] rom Findlaw