CHAMBERLIN et al. v. DADE COUNTY BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION et al., 377 U.S. 402 (1964)
- Argued:
- N/A
- Decided:
- June 01, 1964
- Decided by:
- Warren Court, 1963
- Action:
- Reversed. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.
See Opinion tab for full case information.
Majority Opinion
Earl Warren Tom Clark John Harlan (1955-71) William Brennan Byron White Arthur Goldberg
Concurring Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
No opinions found
CHAMBERLIN ET AL.
v.
DADE COUNTY BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
Leo Pfeffer and Howard W. Dixon for appellants.
George C. Bolles for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to use the record in No. 520, October Term 1962, is granted. The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed with respect to the issues of the constitutionality of prayer, and of devotional Bible reading pursuant to a Florida statute, Fla. Stat. (1961) § 231.09, in the public schools of Dade County. School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203. As to the other questions raised, the appeal is dismissed for want of properly presented federal questions. Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 326 U. S. 207, 213-214.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BLACK agrees, concurring in part.
I join in reversing the Supreme Court of Florida on the main issue in the case.
The “other questions raised” which the Court refuses to consider because not “properly presented” involve the constitutionality under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of baccalaureate services in the schools, a religious *403 census among pupils, and a religious test for teachers. The Florida Supreme Court disposed of those issues on the authority of Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429, which held that a taxpayer lacks standing to challenge religious exercises in the public schools. Irrespective of Doremus v. Board of Education, supra, I think it is arguable that appellant-taxpayers do have standing to challenge these practices.
I think, however, that two of those “other questions”— the baccalaureate services and the religious census—do not present substantial federal questions, and so I concur in the dismissal of the appeal as to them. As to the religious test for teachers,[*] I think a substantial question is presented. Cf. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488. I would therefore put that question down for argument, postponing the question of jurisdiction to the merits.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART would note probable jurisdiction of this appeal and set it down for argument on the merits.
NOTES
[*] Applicants for teaching positions are required to answer the question, “Do you believe in God?” Religious attitudes are also considered in making promotions.
HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., (2012)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
KEN L. SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al. v. FRANK BUONO, 559 U.S. 700 (2010)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
THOMAS VAN ORDEN v. RICK PERRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS AND CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, et al., 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
MCCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al., 545 U.S. 844 (2005)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
JON B. CUTTER, et al. v. REGINALD WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al., 544 U.S. 709 (2005)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
GOOD NEWS CLUB, et al. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. JANE DOE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR HER MINOR CHILDREN, JANE AND JOHN DOE, et al., 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD, et al. v. VINCENT J. PINETTE, DONNIE A. CARR AND KNIGHTS OF THE KU KLUX KLAN, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
RONALD W. ROSENBERGER, et al. v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al., 515 U.S. 819 (1995)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
ROBERT E. LEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRINCIPAL OF NATHAN BISHOP MIDDLE SCHOOL, et al. v. DANIEL WEISMAN ETC., 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER, et al., 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
TEXAS MONTHLY, INC. v. BULLOCK, COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS OF STATE OF TEXAS, et al., 489 U.S. 1 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. KENDRICK et al., 487 U.S. 589 (1988)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS et al. v. AMOS et al., 483 U.S. 327 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
BENDER et al. v. WILLIAMSPORT AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., 475 U.S. 534 (1986)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
ESTATE OF THORNTON et al. v. CALDOR, INC., 472 U.S. 703 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF SCARSDALE, et al. v. KATHLEEN S. MCCREARY et al., 471 U.S. 83 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
LYNCH, MAYOR OF PAWTUCKET, et al. v. DONNELLY et al., 465 U.S. 668 (1984)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
MARSH, NEBRASKA STATE TREASURER, et al. v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
LARKIN et al. v. GRENDEL’S DEN, INC., 459 U.S. 116 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
LARSON, COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al. v. VALENTE et al., 456 U.S. 228 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
WIDMAR et al. v. VINCENT et al., 454 U.S. 263 (1981)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
STONE et al. v. GRAHAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF KENTUCKY, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
NEW YORK v. CATHEDRAL ACADEMY, 434 U.S. 125 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
SLOAN, TREASURER OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al. v. LEMON et al., 413 U.S. 825 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, 397 U.S. 664 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
EPPERSON et al. v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA, et al. v. SCHEMPP et al., 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
ARLAN’S DEPARTMENT STORE OF LOUISVILLE, INC., et al. v. KENTUCKY, 371 U.S. 218 (1962)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
ENGEL et al. v. VITALE et al., 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
MCGOWAN et al. v. MARYLAND, 366 U.S. 420 (1961)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
TWO GUYS FROM HARRISON-ALLENTOWN, INC., v. MCGINLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, et al., 366 U.S. 582 (1961)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Establishment
Topics: Establishment, Freedom of Religion
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.
Follow FIRE