wallace v. jaffree
Case name: Wallace, Governor of Alabama, et al. v. Jaffree, et al.
Year decided: 1985
Result: 6-3, in favor of Jaffree
Related constitutional issue/amendment: First Amendment (Establishment Clause)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that Alabama's law allowing teachers to lead prayer services and other religious activity during the school day violated the Establishment Clause because it failed to uphold Alabama's neutrality toward religion and actively endorsed religion. By applying the Lemon test, the Court determined that the law did not have a secular purpose and tried to establish religion in schools, a clear infraction upon the Establishment Clause.
Quote from majority opinion: "For whenever the State itself speaks on a religious subject, one of the questions that we must ask is 'whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion.' The well-supported concurrent findings of the District Court and the Court of Appeals -- that § 16-1-20.1 was intended to convey a message of state approval of prayer activities in the public schools."
Summary of the dissent: The statute does not establish religion and one of its secular intentions is to assert that silent, individual prayer is not prohibited. The use of the Lemon test is an attempt by the Court to treat all cases in a uniform manner regardless of the circumstances when all cases are unique.
Six-word summary: Teachers cannot be preachers during school.
Year decided: 1985
Result: 6-3, in favor of Jaffree
Related constitutional issue/amendment: First Amendment (Establishment Clause)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that Alabama's law allowing teachers to lead prayer services and other religious activity during the school day violated the Establishment Clause because it failed to uphold Alabama's neutrality toward religion and actively endorsed religion. By applying the Lemon test, the Court determined that the law did not have a secular purpose and tried to establish religion in schools, a clear infraction upon the Establishment Clause.
Quote from majority opinion: "For whenever the State itself speaks on a religious subject, one of the questions that we must ask is 'whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion.' The well-supported concurrent findings of the District Court and the Court of Appeals -- that § 16-1-20.1 was intended to convey a message of state approval of prayer activities in the public schools."
Summary of the dissent: The statute does not establish religion and one of its secular intentions is to assert that silent, individual prayer is not prohibited. The use of the Lemon test is an attempt by the Court to treat all cases in a uniform manner regardless of the circumstances when all cases are unique.
Six-word summary: Teachers cannot be preachers during school.