Mozert v. Hawkins

Last updated
Mozert v. Hawkins
US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-Seal.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Full case nameBob & Alice Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education (Hawkins County Public Schools)
ArguedJuly 9, 1987
DecidedAugust 24, 1987
Citation(s)827 F.2d 1058
Case history
Prior historyInjunction granted, claim for damages dismissed, Mozert v. Hawkins Cty. Pub. Sch., 647 F. Supp. 1194 (E.D. Tenn. 1986)
Subsequent historyRehearing denied (October 5, 1987); cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1066(1988).
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Pierce Lively, Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy, Danny Julian Boggs
Case opinions
MajorityLively, joined by Kennedy
ConcurrenceBoggs
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Mozert v. Hawkins, 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1987), was a notable case involving First Amendment rights of religion in protesting required public school reading for students in Tennessee. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Background

Students' parents at a public school were offended by themes being taught in the required reading of classes. [4] Among these were the use of magical powers in Shakespeare's MacBeth, which offended the religious beliefs of these parents. The parents felt that they had a right to choose what their children could or could not view and learn at school and what was being taught was not approved by them. [1] [2] [3]

The parents, under Bob Mozert, therefore brought a class action lawsuit against the Hawkins County Public School District, stating that their freedom of expression clause had been violated in these required books. The school had given them no alternative reading options for their children that could have avoided this case. The parents argued that their right to free expression was null if the state could decide whatever topics it could teach children. They stated the book taught their children about witchcraft and the occult, disrespect and disobedience to parents, prayer to idols, along with various secular and humanist ideas. [1] [2] [3]

The lower court ruled in favor of Mozert and the parents and deemed that the School Board had to consider the parents' wishes in accommodating their wishes. The School Board felt this ruling was unfair and was a mistaken enactment of the free expression clause and therefore appealed the case. [1] [2] [3]

Case

The court considered if there indeed was any impedance to rights of expression. The court took into account that it was required reading and not required worship or examination. The court also determined that among the parents' complaints, none of them in fact took away anyone's rights to express freely; they were, simply put, the views of another. [1] [2] [3]

No evidence could be found that the School Board or the State had coerced the school children into changing their beliefs, or adopting new ones. The only violation that could be found was that the School Board did make a breach when it taught that there were multiple ways to worship God, not just one. This, both the parents and the court, believed to be a coercion of beliefs and thus in violation of the free expression clause. [1] [2] [3]

Decision

The court ruled in the defendant's favor in part, overturning the decision and stating that the School Board was not in violation for requiring the reading to children; it was up to them and their parents to interpret the book for themselves. However, the School Board was in violation of the first amendment when it had informed the students that there is not one particular way to worship and that they could find any way to express they desired. The School Board was required immediately to cease this action. [1] [2] [3]

Significance

This case set further precedent for the free expression clause used in public schools. It allows for state schools to teach controversial religious material to students, provided that they are not endorsing, condoning, or in any way encouraging either the belief or expression, or any aspect of a student's faith.

Related Research Articles

First Amendment to the United States Constitution 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp on behalf of his son Ellery Schempp, and declared that school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States was unconstitutional.

School prayer, in the context of religious liberty, is state-sanctioned or mandatory prayer by students in public schools. Depending on the country and the type of school, state-sponsored prayer may be required, permitted, or prohibited. Countries which prohibit or limit school prayer often differ in their reasons for doing so. In the United States, school prayer cannot be required of students in accordance with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is generally rigorously applied in public schools; the Establishment Clause does not prevent prayer in private schools that have no public funding. In Canada, school-sponsored prayer is disallowed under the concept of freedom of conscience as outlined in the Canadian Charter on Rights & Fundamental Freedoms. School-sponsored prayer is disallowed in France as a byproduct of its status as a secular nation. Countries that allow or require school and other state-sponsored prayer include Greece, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Australia. The United Kingdom also requires daily worship by law, but does not enforce it.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools, due to violation of the First Amendment. The ruling has been the subject of intense debate.

"Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to state law. Prior to this decision, the First Amendment's words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" imposed limits only on the federal government, and many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even if the vouchers could be used for private, religious schools.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

<i>Selman v. Cobb County School District</i>

Selman v. Cobb County School District, 449 F.3d 1320, was a United States court case in Cobb County, Georgia involving a sticker placed in public school biology textbooks. The sticker was a disclaimer stating that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things." The plaintiffs were parents of children in Cobb County schools who claimed the sticker violated both the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the separation of church and state clause in the Georgia State Constitution because its purpose and effect was to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory in order to promote religious beliefs in the schools.

<i>Immediato v. Rye Neck School District</i>

Immediato v. Rye Neck School District, 73 F.3d 454 was a Second Circuit Court of Appeals case involving the petitioner, a boy named Daniel Immediato and his parents, Eugene and Diane Immediato, against the respondent, Rye Neck School District in the village of Mamaroneck, New York. The court held that the school district did not violate Immediato's rights by requiring him to perform community service.

<i>Saxe v. State College Area School District</i>

Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200, was a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that ruled that the State College Area School District's policy restricting "unwelcome" and "offensive" speech on public school grounds violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.

The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States has been criticized on several grounds. Its use in government funded schools has been the most controversial, as critics contend that a government-sanctioned endorsement of religion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Arguments against the pledge include that the pledge itself is incompatible with democracy and freedom, that it is a form of nationalistic indoctrination, that pledges of allegiance are features of totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany, and that the pledge was written to honor Christopher Columbus and to sell flags.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), held that when a government operates a "limited public forum," it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses—in this case, against religious speech engaged in by an evangelical Christian club for children.

In Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a nonreligious, legislative purpose. The statute required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the state. The copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased with private funding, but the Court ruled that because they were being placed in public classrooms they were in violation of the First Amendment.

Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case examining the constitutionality of a state tax deduction granted to taxpaying parents for school-related expenses, including expenses incurred from private secular and religious schools. The plaintiffs claimed that a Minnesota statute, allowing tax deductions for both public and private school expenses, had the effect of subsidizing religious instruction since parents who paid tuition to religious schools received a larger deduction than parents of public school students, who incurred no tuition expenses.

School prayer in the United States if organized by the school is largely banned from public elementary, middle and high schools by a series of Supreme Court decisions since 1962. Students may pray privately, and join religious clubs in after-school hours. Public schools are those operated by government agencies, such as local school districts. They are banned from conducting religious observances such as prayer. Private and parochial schools are not covered by these rulings, nor are colleges and universities. Elementary and secondary schools are covered because students are required to attend, and are considered more at risk from official pressure than are older students and adults. The Constitutional basis for this prohibition is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which requires that...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

<i>Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder</i>

Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education case brief". Law School Case Briefs.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education, 827 F. 2d 1058 (1987)". Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. Archived from the original on 2013-10-12. Retrieved 2013-10-12.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "MOZERT v. HAWKINS COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS". Leagle.
  4. ↑ Notable First Amendment Court Cases , Am. Library Ass'n (July 24, 2006).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.