Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lee Vs. Weisman

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 24, 1992

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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

63 entries 8 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Lynch Vs. Donnelly US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1984
  2. Engel Vs. Vitale US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1962
  3. Edwards Vs. Aguillard US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1987
  4. Epperson Vs. Arkansas US Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1968
  5. Marsh Vs. Chambers US Supreme Court · Jul 05, 1983
  6. Meese Vs. Keene US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1987
  7. Buckley Vs. Valeo US Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1976
  8. Bradfield Vs. Roberts US Supreme Court · Dec 04, 1899
  9. U.S. 577 (1992) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Lee Et Al. V. Weisman
    Search
  10. and secondary public schools compel the holding here. Thus, the Court will not reconsider its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Search
  11. and coerce. Prayer exercises in elementary and secondary schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. Engel v. Vitale
    Search
  12. School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp
    Search
  13. differences between the public school system and a session of a state legislature distinguish this case from Marsh v. Chambers
    Search
  14. the practice. 728 F. Supp. 68 (1990). The court applied the three-part Establishment Clause test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Search
  15. and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist
    Search
  16. and violates the Establishment Clause. In so holding the court expressed the determination not to follow Stein v. Plainwell
    Search
  17. F.2d 1406 (1987), in which the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, relying on our decision in Marsh v. Chambers
    Search
  18. accommodation by the State for the religious beliefs and practices of many of its citizens. See County of Allegheny v. American
    Search
  19. we do not accept the invitation of petitioners and amicus the United States to reconsider our decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Search
  20. see also County of Allegheny, supra, at 591, quoting Everson v. Board
    Search
  21. permit school officials to assist in composing prayers as an incident to a formal exercise for their students. Engel v. Vitale
    Search
  22. the very object of some of our most important speech is to persuade the government to adopt an idea as its own. Meese v. Keene
    Search
  23. see also Keller v. State
    Search
  24. Abood v. Detroit
    Search
  25. on forms of state intervention in religious affairs with no precise counterpart in the speech provisions. Buckley v. Valeo
    Search
  26. from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools. See, e. g., School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp
    Search
  27. Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens
    Search
  28. U. S. 226 , 261-262 (1990) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). Our decisions in Engel v. Vitale
    Search
  29. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. See County of Allegheny v. American
    Search
  30. setting, where we have said the risk of compulsion is especially high. See supra, at 593-594. Just as in Engel v. Vitale
    Search
  31. U. S., at 430, and School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp
    Search
  32. the speeches, the timing, the movements, the dress, and the decorum of the students. Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser
    Search
  33. petitioners and the United States between the facts of Marsh and the case now before us. Our decisions in Engel v. Vitale
    Search
  34. supra, and School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp
    Search
  35. interaction with the public schools and their students. See Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens
    Search
  36. by the Court. I This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board
    Search
  37. A few earlier cases involving federal laws touched on interpretation of the Establishment Clause. In Reynolds v. United
    Search
  38. States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), and Davis v. Beason
    Search
  39. U. S., at 342. In another case, Bradfield v. Roberts
    Search
  40. the Indians from using their money, held by the United States Government, for religious education. See Quick Bear v. Leupp
    Search
  41. Everson, 330 U. S., at 16 (quoting Reynolds v. United
    Search
  42. U. S., at 31-32 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.). In Engel v. Vitale
    Search
  43. A year later, the Court again invalidated governmentsponsored prayer in public schools in School Dist. of Abington v. Schempp
    Search
  44. Everson v. Board
    Search
  45. and given by school officials, and pres- 3 The final prong, excessive entanglement, was a focus of Walz v. Tax
    Search
  46. Since 1971, the Court has decided 31 Establishment Clause cases. In only one instance, the decision of Marsh v. Chambers
    Search
  47. For example, in the most recent Establishment Clause case, Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens
    Search
  48. Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist
    Search
  49. Syllabus Lee Et Al. V. Weisman
    Search
  50. Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial