APRIL 2025 | 9 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. FIGURE 1: COMPARISON OF RELIGION-IN-SCHOOLS CASES Vinson Court, 1946 to 1953 Case Issue Basis Holding Stance Approach Note Everson v. Bd. of Ed. of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Funding: State funds were used to pay parochial students’ bus fares to get to and from school. Establishment Clause Constitutional Restraintist Separationist The result seems neutral. But the court said, “[The] wall (between church and state) must be kept high and impregnable.” (18). McCollum v. Bd. of Ed., 333 U.S. 203 (1948) Religious practice: A public school released students to religious classes during school hours in the school building. Establishment Clause Unconstitutional Activist Separationist Reasoning: Taxsupported school buildings were being used for the dissemination of religious doctrine. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) Religious practice: A public school released students during school hours for religious class off school grounds. Establishment Clause Constitutional Restraintist Accommodationist Allowing students to receive religious instruction during school was accommodating religion – no government funds or facilities were used. (313). Warren Court, 1953 to 1969 Case Issue Basis Holding Stance Approach Note Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) Religious practice: The state created a prayer that public schools led each morning. Establishment Clause Unconstitutional Activist Separationist Reasoning: The government-composed prayer constituted a state endorsement of religion. Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) Religious practice: A public school began each day with the Lord’s Prayer and a Bible reading. Establishment Clause Unconstitutional Activist Neutralist The court said, “[F]ree Exercise ... never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs.” (226). Epperson v. State, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) Religious purpose: State law illegalized the teaching of evolution. Establishment Clause Unconstitutional Activist Separationist Reasoning: The law was derived from a particular religious doctrine of a particular religious group. Burger Court, 1969 to 1986 Case Issue Basis Holding Stance Approach Note Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) Funding: Public funds supplemented parochial teachers’ salaries for secular subjects that used public textbooks. Establishment Clause Unconstitutional Activist Separationist Established the threepart Lemon Test, including the excessive entanglement prong. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) Religious practice: State compulsory schooling laws disrupted the Amish way of life and parents’ right to direct children’s religious upbringing. Free Exercise Clause Unconstitutional Activist Accommodationist Reasoning: Amish families’ right to free exercise outweighed the state’s interest in compelling school attendance.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==