Wallace v. Jaffree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wallace v. Jaffree

Argued December 4, 1984
Decided June 4, 1985


Full case name:	Wallace, Governor of Alabama, et al. v. Jaffree, et al.

Citations:	472 U.S. 38; 105 S. Ct. 2479; 86 L. Ed. 2d 29; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 91; 53 U.S.L.W. 4665

Prior history:	Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

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."

Court membership

Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor

Case opinions

Majority by: Stevens
Joined by: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell
Concurrence by: Powell
Concurrence by: O'Connor
Dissent by: Rehnquist
Dissent by: Burger
Dissent by: White

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. I

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer. An Alabama law had required that each school day commence with a moment of "silent meditation or voluntary prayer". 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 District Court allowed the practice, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 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."