Abington School District v. Schempp

Media Items
Oral Argument, Part 1
Get Adobe Flash Player
Oral Argument, Part 2
Get Adobe Flash Player
Oral Argument (No. 119)
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
John D. Killian, III (Argued the cause for the appellants)
Henry W. Sawyer, III (Argued the cause for the appellees)
Philip H. Ward, III (Argued the cause for the appellants)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
142
Appellee: 
Schempp
Appellant: 
School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, et al.
Consolidation: 
Murray v. Curlett, No. 119
Decided By: 
Warren Court (1962-1965)
Opinion: 
374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Categories: 
freedom of religion, first amendment, establishment of religion, education

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Abington School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142)
Facts of the Case: 

The Abington case concerns Bible-reading in Pennsylvania public schools. At the beginning of the school day, students who attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After completing these readings, school authorities required all Abington Township students to recite the Lord's Prayer. Students could be excluded from these exercises by a written note from their parents to the school. In a related case -- Murray v. Curlett -- a Baltimore statute required Bible-reading or the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at open exercises in public schools. Murray and his mother, professed atheists -- challenged the prayer requirement.

Question: 

Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington's policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion: 

The Court found such a violation. The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, the ability of a parent to excuse a child from these ceremonies by a written note was irrelevant since it did not prevent the school's actions from violating the Establishment Clause.

Decisions

Decision: 8 votes for Schempp, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Sort by Seniority

Wrote a regular concurrence
Douglas
Voted with the majority
Black
Voted with the majority
Warren
Wrote a regular concurrence
Brennan
Wrote a regular concurrence
Goldberg
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote the majority opinion
Clark
Wrote a dissent
Stewart
Voted with the majority, joined Goldberg's concurrence
Harlan

Full Opinion by Justice Tom C. Clark