By Joey Sampson
Legal Cases Paper
A paper presented to Dr.Yount for
YOUT 350-B01
Campus Ministry
1
Court case #1: Engel v. Vitale
“Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale.” United States Courts,
www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-
engel-v-vitale.
Summary
In this New York case, a state law requiring public schools to open each day with the
Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer was fought. While the law allowed students to abstain from the
activity if they found it objectionable, a parent sued on behalf of his child arguing it violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause states that no laws
shall be passed regarding the formation of religion. In Engel v. Vitale, the court ruled 6-1,
maintaining that school-sponsored prayer violated the First Amendment. Moreover, the majority
stated the provision allowing students to absent themselves from the activity did not make the
law constitutional because the purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent government
interference with religion.1
Personal Response
To me as someone with no legal expertise, I believe on the surface the result of this court
case is saddening but expected. I understand that the First Amendment was created for a reason,
but I also believe it was specifically focused on state-sponsored churches such as the Church of
England and not to stop things that are completely optional for students to participate in. As the
walls of public school and society altogether continue to crumble, I firmly believe that the slow
elimination of prayer (even of the optional variety) throughout schools is a cause of that. I
believe that beginning a day with students having an opportunity to prayer through their own
personal religion is not at all invasive nor obtrusive.
Ministry Implications and Conclusion
The implications of this case for Christians involve individual students and their prayer
life. While the case does not forbid students from praying on their own time throughout a school
day, it certainly adds a roadblock for those types of activities to happen. Even though the
students were not asked to observe any specific religion, this certainly impacts Christians the
most as we are the majority of the United States. With the exclusion of voluntary prayer
throughout public schools, it only makes the public school setting a more divisive location for
practicing Christian students to feel comfortable practicing their faith.
Court Case #2: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Summary
In this case, the scientific theory of Intelligent Design was put into the crosshairs when it
came to allowable public school science curriculum. Specifically, a policy was challenged in the
Dover School District that stated, “students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s
theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.” Due to
this policy, a disclaimer was given to teachers prior to the section that was read to the class. In
2005, a Judge John Jones ruled in favor of the plaintiffs because teaching intelligent design in
public school biology classes was a violation of the First Amendment.2
Personal Response
2 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Even though I don’t disagree that creationism should not be taught in public school
science classes, I believe that Intelligent Design provided a necessary litmus test in order for it to
be deemed scientific. Evolution deals with historical science because we do not actively see it
occurring. Intelligent Design relies on the same type of historical data, because we can only
observe what occurred in the past. To me, Intelligent Design is backed up by a vast number of
sciences including astronomy, biology, and chemistry. I see no problem with giving students
multiple worldviews through the scientific realm, and conceding that evolution is hardly an
airtight theory with many holes.
Ministry Implications and Conclusion
The implications of this ruling are that students with no engrained worldview will sit
through curriculum believing that the theory of evolution is just as scientifically sound as gravity
or the periodic table. Public school science textbooks provide convincing evidence of evolution
through a lens of naturalism that purposely leads no alternatives to a creator who is outside of
space and time. By even eliminating the prospect of a disclaimer, the fear from Christian
Ministers should be that children are learning diametrically opposed worldviews in science class
through their instructors who they respect. Far too many times, we see students leave their
science classes and step into church on Sunday only to run away from their faith. This court case
has only further tarnished the authority that many students have on scripture. Specifically, on the
view of origins.
Court Case #3: Morse v. Frederick
Summary
3 “Facts and Case Summary - Morse v. Frederick.” United States Courts,
www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-
morse-v-frederick.
In this case, a senior student in Alaska named Joseph Frederick sued his High School
Principal Deborah Morse for what he argued was religious discrimination. Frederick held up a
banner at a school sponsored event that said, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”, and was subsequently
suspended by Morse for ten days after he refused to take the sign down. In a 5-4 decision, the
United States Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not prevent school
administrators from restricting student expression that reasonably is viewed as promoting the use
of illegal drugs. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, argued that the speech was
restricted because it it was “reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.”3
Personal Response
Unlike the first two cases, I firmly believe the courts made the correction decision in this
case. While it is important to recognize the First Amendment rights of students and staff
members alike, this was an obvious difference to me when it comes to freedom of speech. Even
though I have First Amendment rights of an American, there are several things I cannot do such
as yell fire in a crowded movie theater or solicit illegal sex. Likewise, the student in this situation
was offering a non-political message of illegal activity at an event specifically sanctioned by the
school district.
Ministry Implications and Conclusion
From a ministry perspective, the implications I believe could be an inclusion of local
church youth groups where this case occurred. Because the incident occurred at a school
function, perhaps that leaves an opportunity for ministries in that area to make themselves known
and to provide adequate settings for students to express themselves in less-destructive ways. I
also think this case makes it clear that while students have the freedom of expression such as
their religious views, there are certain exceptions. As a Christian who will send his son or
daughter to public schools, it gives a much needed sense of clarity on what could be legally
allowed when it comes to school discipline.
