Though it was overshadowed by the reversal of Roe v. Wade the Friday before, the Supreme Court’s decision on June 27, 2022 in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District was just as epochal as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In it, the Court removed the secularist constraints it had imposed on our public life six decades earlier in Engel v. Vitale, a case about school prayer. The consequences of this decision are great. School boards, legislatures, and other government bodies entrusted with responsibility for the common good are no longer required to pretend that religion is a purely private matter. They are now free to enrich our common life by promoting the general conditions for religious awareness, attentiveness, and practice. Pending cases about displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools present an opportunity for them to do just that.
Decided in 1962, Engel v. Vitale concerned a prayer composed by state officials in New York and disseminated for recitation in public schools. The short prayer was this: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” Students could opt out if they wished. The Supreme Court nonetheless ruled that the exercise violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Some might argue that Engel signaled little beyond its school context, since pupils are immature, impressionable, still subject to parental control—a special case. But this is not so. In the early 1960s, public support for school prayer was very strong. The Court’s majority knew that their decision would engender bitter opposition. Their willingness to defy the opposition and prohibit even a modest expression of reverence tells us that they meant business. Engel was no one-off. It was not just about kids. It was meant to be revolutionary. And it was.
As with so many revolutions, the causes of this one are shrouded in mystery. Commentators at the time fixed on what they held to be the crux of the majority opinion: “It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite.” Yet in the next year, the Court ruled against devotional Bible reading and saying the Lord’s Prayer—neither text composed down at City Hall.
A close look at the majority opinion reveals that the justices had nothing to say about First Amendment jurisprudence. They offer a turgid parable about freedom-loving colonials throwing off the yoke of British oppression. Cases are cited, but none of the Court’s own prior holdings on relevant matters. The only reference to an earlier decision is meaningless, a footnote to Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Engel did not claim to be based on judicial precedent.