Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Wallace Vs. Jaffree

Wallace vs Jaffree

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1984
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/105794

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
466 U.S. 924
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Wallace

Respondent

Jaffree

Excerpt

.....these statutory provisions and nonstatutory practices. the district court dismissed the amended complaint. the court of appeals reversed the district court's judgment in relevant part. it held the challenged statutory provisions and nonstatutory practices unconstitutional and ordered the district court to enter an injunction. appellants page 466 u.s. 924 , 925 invoke this court's appellate jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. 1254(2) regarding the court of appeals' judgments on the statutory provisions. as i understand it, the order this court enters today is a holding that ala.code 16-1-20.2 is invalid as repugnant to the establishment clause of the first amendment, applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment. moreover, the court's order also affirms the judgment of the court of appeals insofar as it directed the district court to enjoin the appellants from enforcing ala.code 16-1-20.2. the judgment of the court of appeals concerning the nonstatutory school prayer practices is not within the appellate jurisdiction of this court and is challenged in a petition for a writ of certiorari in no. 83-804. the court denies that petition. the court's order noting probable jurisdiction is thus limited to the judgment of the court of appeals concerning the constitutionality of ala. code 16-1-20.1 (1982). appellants frame the constitutional questions presented by that provision as follows: "whether a state statute which permits, but does not require, teachers in public schools to observe up to a minute of non-activity for meditation or silent prayer has the predominant effect of advancing students' liberty of religion and of mind rather than any effect of establishing a religion." juris. statement, no. 83-812 i. "does a moment of silence for individual silent 'prayer or meditation' at the beginning of each school day in a public school classroom violate the establishment clause of the first amendment as interpreted by its language, framers'.....

Full Judgment

WALLACE v. JAFFREE - 466 U.S. 924 (1984)
U.S. Supreme Court WALLACE v. JAFFREE , 466 U.S. 924 (1984)

466 U.S. 924

George C. WALLACE, Governor of the State of Alabama, et al.
v.
Ishmael JAFFREE et al. Douglas T. SMITH et al.
v.
Ishmael JAFFREE et al
No. 83-812
No.83-929

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 1984

In these cases probable jurisdiction is noted limited to Question 1 in the jurisdictional statements. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The judgment with respect to the other issues presented by the appeals is affirmed.

Justice STEVENS, concurring.

In his amended complaint in this case, appellee sought (1) a judgment holding two statutory provisions, Ala.Code 16-1-20.1, Ala.Code 16-1-20. 2, and certain allegedly State sanctioned, though not statutorily sanctioned, school prayer practices invalid under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) an injunction against the enforcement of these statutory provisions and nonstatutory practices. The District Court dismissed the amended complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment in relevant part. It held the challenged statutory provisions and nonstatutory practices unconstitutional and ordered the District Court to enter an injunction. Appellants

Page 466 U.S. 924 , 925

invoke this Court's appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1254(2) regarding the Court of Appeals' judgments on the statutory provisions.

As I understand it, the order this Court enters today is a holding that Ala.Code 16-1-20.2 is invalid as repugnant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the Court's order also affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it directed the District Court to enjoin the appellants from enforcing Ala.Code 16-1-20.2. The judgment of the Court of Appeals concerning the nonstatutory school prayer practices is not within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and is challenged in a petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 83-804. The Court denies that petition.

The Court's order noting probable jurisdiction is thus limited to the judgment of the Court of Appeals concerning the constitutionality of Ala. Code 16-1-20.1 (1982). Appellants frame the constitutional questions presented by that provision as follows:

"Whether a state statute which permits, but does not require, teachers in public schools to observe up to a minute of non-activity for meditation or silent prayer has the predominant effect of advancing students' liberty of religion and of mind rather than any effect of establishing a religion." Juris. Statement, No. 83-812 i.

"Does a moment of silence for individual silent 'prayer or meditation' at the beginning of each school day in a public school classroom violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by its language, framers' intent, and history?" Juris. Statement, No. 83-929 i.

On the understanding that the Court has limited argument to the question whether Ala.Code 16-1-20.1 is invalid as repugnant to the Establishment Clause, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, I join the Court's order.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial