Stone v. Graham

Last updated

Stone v. Graham
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided November 17, 1980
Full case nameSydell Stone, et al. v. James B. Graham, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Kentucky
Citations449 U.S. 39 ( more )
101 S. Ct. 192; 66 L. Ed. 2d 199; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 2; 49 U.S.L.W. 3369
Holding
A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public classroom in the State is unconstitutional because it lacks a secular legislative purpose.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Per curiam
DissentBurger, Blackmun
DissentStewart
DissentRehnquist

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), was a court case in which 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.

Contents

Opinion of the Court

The Court held that the Kentucky statute that required the Ten Commandments to be posted in school classrooms [1] violated the First Amendment. To interpret the First Amendment, the Court used the precedent established in Lemon v. Kurtzman and the three-part "Lemon test". The Court concluded that because "requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms has no secular legislative purpose," it is unconstitutional.

The Court approached the case through the lens created in Lemon v. Kurtzman. It agreed that if Kentucky's statute broke any of the three guidelines outlined in the Lemon test, the statute would violate the Establishment Clause. The majority held that The Commandments convey a religious undertone, because they concern "the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day." But since "the Commandments are [not] integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history," they have no secular purpose and a definite religious purpose.

The Court concluded that even though The Commandments were paid for by a private institution and were "merely posted on the wall ... the mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the 'official support of the State ... Government' that the Establishment Clause prohibits." Even though the Commandments were not used to indoctrinate or convert students but were quite passive, the Court maintained, "it is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment." Because it endorsed religion and had no secular purpose, the Court concluded that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional.

Majority: "This is not a case in which the Ten Commandments are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like. [See Abington School District v. Schempp.] Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."

Dissent

Justice Rehnquist argued in his dissent that the statute did not violate the First Amendment because there was a legitimate secular purpose to the Ten Commandments' posting. He wrote, "the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World," which he qualified as a secular purpose. Rehnquist's dissent also argued that something's relation to religion does not automatically cause it to "respect an establishment of religion."

Rehnquist agreed with the framework proposed by the majority, but thought the Kentucky statute had a secular purpose. That "the asserted secular purpose may overlap with what some may see as a religious objective does not render it unconstitutional", he wrote. The Court argued that since the Commandments are a "sacred text" and not taught in the context of history classes, their mandatory posting is unconstitutional. Rehnquist argued that the Commandments "had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World." His dissent contended that since religion has "been closely identified with our history and government ... one can hardly respect the system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought."

Aftermath

In 2023, Texas Republican politician Phil King introduced SB 1515 of the 88th Session of the Texas Senate, which would require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom of every public school in Texas. [2] [3] The bill eventually lapsed in the State House when the session closed without voting it. [4]

On June 19, 2024, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed a bill into law that makes Louisiana the first state to mandate the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom, in a challenge to Stone. [5] [6] [7] [8] Hours after its signing, four civil liberties groups filed challenges against the law. [9] On November 12, 2024, the law was blocked by U.S. District Court Judge John W. deGravelles who declared it "unconstitutional on its face." [10] Louisiana Attorney General, Liz Murrill immediately announced an appeal. [11] On November 15, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted an emergency stay motion from the Louisiana state, limiting the ruling to the five parishes whose school boards were named as defendants in the case. [12]

On June 21, 2024, The Lieutenant Governor of Texas, Dan Patrick, stated that he would pass a similar bill requiring the Ten Commandments in schools in the next legislative session, known as Senate Bill 1515. He criticized Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives Dade Phelan for failing to put the bill to a vote on the floor in the last legislative session on Twitter. [13]

See also

 List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 449 
 Van Orden v. Perry  (2005)
 Pleasant Grove City v. Summum  (2009)

Abington School District v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Related Research Articles

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court considered a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The constitutionality of the law was successfully challenged in District Court, Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F. Supp. 426, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251. The United States Supreme Court ruled that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. In its decision, the court opined that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–0 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials.

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 and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools in the United States was unconstitutional.

"Separation of church and state" is a metaphor paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in discussions 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 that applied the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to state law. Before this decision, the clause, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", restricted only the federal government, while 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 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...

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue was whether the Court should continue to inquire into the purpose behind a religious display and whether evaluation of the government's claim of secular purpose for the religious displays may take evolution into account under an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas Van Orden</span> American lawyer

Thomas David Van Orden was an American lawyer who unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol under the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S. Ct. 2854 (2005).

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the legality of Christmas decorations on town property. All plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Daniel Donnelly, were members of the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU. The lead defendant was Dennis Lynch, then mayor of Pawtucket, Rhode Island.

Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989), was a case brought before the US Supreme Court in November 1988. The case was to test the legality of a Texas statute that exempted religious publications from paying state sales tax.

Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it was permissible for loans to be made to religious schools under Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981.

Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case that focused on First Amendment rights and the Establishment Clause. Vincent Pinette, an active member of the Ku Klux Klan in Columbus, Ohio, wanted to place an unattended cross on the lawn of the Capitol Square during the 1993 Christmas season. Pinette and his fellow members of the KKK submitted their request. The advisory board originally denied this request. However, Pinette and the other members of the Ohio Chapter of the Klan fought this decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The court found in favor of the Klan and the advisory board issued the permit. The Board appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the district court. The board made one last petition to the Supreme Court where the decision was made, by a vote of seven to two, that the Klan was permitted to display the cross at the public forum.

In American schools, the Genesis creation narrative was generally taught as the origin of the universe and of life until Darwin's scientific theories became widely accepted. While there was some immediate backlash, organized opposition did not get underway until the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy broke out following World War I; several states passed laws banning the teaching of evolution while others debated them but did not pass them. The Scopes Trial was the result of a challenge to the law in Tennessee. Scopes lost his case, and further U.S. states passed laws banning the teaching of evolution.

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.

Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Adolescent Family Life Act.

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state statute providing employees with an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">House Bill 71</span> Louisiana law directing schools to display the Ten Commandments

Louisiana House Bill 71 , or Act 676, was a law passed by the Louisiana State Legislature and signed by Governor Jeff Landry in June of 2024 that directs schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

<i>Roake v. Brumley</i>

Roake v. Brumley is a United States federal court case regarding Louisiana House Bill 71, which will require the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in all public classrooms in Louisiana. On November 12, 2024, it was ruled unconstitutional in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, but is in the process of being appealed.

References

  1. ↑ "Kentucky Revised Statutes 158.178" . Retrieved June 20, 2024.
  2. ↑ "Public schools would have to display Ten Commandments under bill passed by Texas Senate". Texas Tribune. April 20, 2023. Retrieved April 23, 2023.
  3. ↑ SB 1515 88th Session Legislative Session, Texas Legislature Online, April 23, 2023.
  4. ↑ Goodman, J. David (May 24, 2023). "Bill to Force Texas Public Schools to Display Ten Commandments Fails". The New York Times . ISSN   1553-8095. A Republican effort to bring religion into classrooms faltered, though lawmakers were poised to allow chaplains to act as school counselors.
  5. ↑ Pereira, Ivan (June 19, 2024). "Louisiana public schools to display Ten Commandments in classrooms after controversial law passes". ABC News . American Broadcasting Company.
  6. ↑ Gallman, Stephanie; Gallagher, Dianne (June 19, 2024). "Louisiana classrooms now required by law to display the Ten Commandments". CNN .
  7. ↑ Lonas, Lexi (June 19, 2024). "Louisiana becomes nation's first state to require Ten Commandments in classrooms". The Hill .
  8. ↑ "The Ten Commandments are going up in every Louisiana public school under this new law". ABC News (Australia) . Australian Broadcasting Corporation. June 19, 2024.
  9. ↑ "ACLU to file lawsuit against Louisiana law requiring 10 Commandments in schools". The Hill.
  10. ↑ Cline, Sara; McGill, Kevin (November 12, 2024). "Federal judge blocks Louisiana law that requires classrooms to display Ten Commandments". AP News. Retrieved November 12, 2024.
  11. ↑ "Federal Judge Blocks Louisiana Law Requiring Ten Commandments in Classrooms". New York Times.
  12. ↑ McGill, Kevin (November 15, 2024). "Court temporarily limits scope of ruling that Louisiana's Ten Commandments law is unconstitutional". AP News. The Associated Press. Retrieved November 17, 2024.
  13. ↑ Tait, Robert (June 21, 2024). "Texas Republican vows to pass bill on Ten Commandments in public schools". The Guardian. Guardian News & Media Limited. Retrieved June 22, 2024.

——External links——

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.