WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S.

38 (1985) 1
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
472 U.S. 38
WALLACE, GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA, ET AL. v. JAFFREE ET AL.
AEAL FROM T!E UN"TE# STATES COURT OF AEALS FOR T!E ELEVENT! C"RCU"T
N$. 83%812.
A&'()* #)+),-)& 4, 1984
#)+.*)* J(/) 4, 1985 0
In proceedings instituted in Federal District Court, appellees challenged the constitutionality of, inter
alia, a 1981 Alabama Statute ( 1!1!"#$1% authori&ing a 1!minute period of silence in all public schools
'for meditation or (oluntary prayer$' Although finding that 1!1!"#$1 )as an effort to encourage a
religious acti(ity, the District Court ultimately held that the *stablishment Clause of the First
Amendment does not prohibit a State from establishing a religion$ +he Court of Appeals re(ersed$
,eld-
Section 1!1!"#$1 is a la) respecting the establishment of religion and thus (iolates the First
Amendment$ .p$ /8!1$
(a% +he proposition that the se(eral States ha(e no greater po)er to restrain the indi(idual freedoms
protected by the First Amendment than does Congress is firmly embedded in constitutional
0urisprudence$ +he First Amendment )as adopted to curtail Congress1 po)er to interfere )ith the
indi(idual1s freedom to belie(e, to )orship, and to e2press himself in accordance )ith the dictates of
his o)n conscience, and the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the same substanti(e limitations on the
States1 po)er to legislate$ +he indi(idual1s freedom to choose his o)n creed is the counterpart of his
right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the ma0ority$ 3oreo(er, the indi(idual freedom
of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or
none at all$ .p$ /8!44$
(b% 5ne of the )ell!established criteria for determining the constitutionality of a statute under the
*stablishment Clause is that the statute must ha(e a secular legislati(e purpose$ 6emon ($ 7urt&man,
/#8 9$S$ #", 1" !18$ +he First Amendment re:uires that a statute must be in(alidated if it is entirely
moti(ated by a purpose to ad(ance religion$ .p$ 44!4$
(c% +he record here not only establishes that 1!1!"#$11s purpose )as to endorse religion, it also
re(eals that the enactment of the statute )as not moti(ated by any clearly secular purpose$ In
particular, the statements of 1!1!"#$11s sponsor in the legislati(e record and in his ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 89=
testimony before the District Court indicate that the legislation )as solely an 'effort to return (oluntary
prayer' to the public schools$ 3oreo(er, such unrebutted e(idence of legislati(e intent is confirmed by
a consideration of the relationship bet)een 1!1!"#$1 and t)o other Alabama statutes ! one of )hich,
enacted in 198" as a se:uel to 1!1!"#$1, authori&ed teachers to lead ')illing students' in a prescribed
prayer, and the other of )hich, enacted in 19<8 as 1!1!"#$11s predecessor, authori&ed a period of
silence 'for meditation' only$ +he State1s endorsement, by enactment of 1!1!"#$1, of prayer acti(ities
at the beginning of each schoolday is not consistent )ith the established principle that the go(ernment
must pursue a course of complete neutrality to)ard religion$ .p$ 4!1$
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) 2
<#4 F$"d 14" and <18 F$"d 1/, affirmed$
S+*>*?S, @$, deli(ered the opinion of the Court, in )hich AB*??A?, 3ABS,A66, A6AC739?, and
.5C*66, @@$, 0oined$ .5C*66, @$, filed a concurring opinion, post, p$ "$ 51C5??5B, @$, filed an
opinion concurring in the 0udgment, post, p$ <$ A9BD*B, C$ @$, post, p$ 8/, C,I+*, @$, post, p$ 9#,
and B*,?E9IS+, @$, post, p$ 91, filed dissenting opinions$
; Footnote F = +ogether )ith ?o$ 88!9"9, Smith et al$ ($ @affree et al$, also on appeal from the same
court$
@ohn S$ AaGer, @r$, argued the cause for appellants in both cases and filed briefs for appellant Callace
in ?o$ 88!81"$ +homas 5$ 7otouc and +homas F$ .arGer I> filed briefs for appellants in ?o$ 88!9"9$
Deputy Solicitor Deneral Aator argued the cause for the 9nited States as amicus curiae urging
re(ersal$ Cith him on the brief )ere Solicitor Deneral 6ee, Assistant Attorney Deneral Beynolds,
3ichael C$ 3cConnell, and Arian 7$ 6andsburg$
Bonnie 6$ Cilliams argued the cause and filed a brief for appellees$Fn
Fn ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 89= Ariefs of amici curiae urging re(ersal )ere filed for the State of Dela)are et al$ by
Charles 3$ 5berly III, Attorney Deneral of Dela)are, Fred S$ Sil(erman, State Solicitor, and Susan ,$
7irG!Byan and Aarbara 3acDonald, Deputy Attorneys Deneral, Bobert 7$ Corbin, Attorney Deneral of
Ari&ona, 6inley *$ .earson, Attorney Deneral of Indiana, Cilliam @$ Duste, @r$, Attorney Deneral of
6ouisiana, 3ichael C$ +urpen, Attorney Deneral of 5Glahoma, and Derald 6$ Aaliles, Attorney Deneral
of >irginiaH for the State of Connecticut by @oseph I$ 6ieberman, Attorney Deneral, ,enry S$ Cohn,
Assistant Attorney Deneral, and Clarine ?ardi BiddleH ;/<" 9$S$ 88, /#= for the Center for @udicial
Studies by Charles *$ BiceH for the Christian 6egal Society et al$ by Forest D$ 3ontgomery and Samuel
*$ *ricssonH for the Freedom Council by @ames @$ 7nicely and @ohn C$ ChiteheadH for the 6egal
Foundation of America by Da(id CrumpH for the 3oral 3a0ority, Inc$, by Cilliam Aentley Aall and .hilip
@$ 3urrenH and for Cinston C$ Anderson et al$ by Alfred @$ 3ainini$
Ariefs of amici curiae urging affirmance )ere filed for the American Ci(il 6iberties 9nion et al$ by @acG
D$ ?o(iG, Aurt ?euborne, @ohn Se2ton, and ?athan I$ Dersho)it&H for the American @e)ish Congress
et al$ by 3arc D$ Stern, @ustin @$ Finger, and @effrey .$ SinensGyH and for 6o)ell .$ CeicGer, @r$, by
Stanley A$ +)ardy, @r$ ;/<" 9$S$ 88, /#=
@9S+IC* S+*>*?S deli(ered the opinion of the Court$
At an early stage of this litigation, the constitutionality of three Alabama statutes )as :uestioned- (1%
1!1!"#, enacted in 19<8, )hich authori&ed a 1!minute period of silence in all public schools 'for
meditation'H 1 ("% 1!1!"#$1, enacted in 1981, )hich authori&ed a period of silence 'for meditation or
(oluntary prayer'H " and (8% 1!1!"#$", enacted in 198", )hich authori&ed teachers to lead ')illing
students' in a prescribed prayer to 'Almighty Dod $ $ $ the Creator and Supreme @udge of the )orld$' 8
;/<" 9$S$ 88, /1=
At the preliminary!in0unction stage of this case, the District Court distinguished 1!1!"# from the other
t)o statutes$ It then held that there )as 'nothing )rong' )ith 1!1!"#, / but that 1!1!"#$1 and 1!1!
"#$" )ere both in(alid because the sole purpose of both )as 'an effort on the part of the State of
Alabama to encourage a religious acti(ity$' 4 After the trial on the merits, the District Court did not
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) 3
change its interpretation of these t)o statutes, but held that they )ere constitutional because, in its
opinion, Alabama has the po)er to establish a state religion if it chooses to do so$
+he Court of Appeals agreed )ith the District Court1s initial interpretation of the purpose of both 1!1!
"#$1 and 1!1!"#$", and held them both unconstitutional$ < Ce ha(e already affirmed the Court of
Appeals1 holding )ith respect to 1!1!"#$"$ 8 3oreo(er, appellees ha(e not :uestioned the holding that
1!1!"# is (alid$ 9 +hus, the narro) :uestion for decision is )hether 1!1!"#$1, )hich authori&es a
period of silence for 'meditation or (oluntary prayer,' is a ;/<" 9$S$ 88, /"= la) respecting the
establishment of religion )ithin the meaning of the First Amendment$ 1#
I
Appellee Ishmael @affree is a resident of 3obile County, Alabama$ 5n 3ay "8, 198", he filed a
complaint on behalf of three of his minor childrenH t)o of them )ere second!grade students and the
third )as then in Gindergarten$ +he complaint named members of the 3obile County School Aoard,
(arious school officials, and the minor plaintiffs1 three teachers as defendants$ 11 +he complaint
alleged that the appellees brought the action 'seeGing principally a declaratory 0udgment and an
in0unction restraining the Defendants and each of them from maintaining or allo)ing the maintenance
of regular religious prayer ser(ices or other forms of religious obser(ances in the 3obile County .ublic
Schools in (iolation of the First Amendment as made applicable to states by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the 9nited States Constitution$' 1" +he complaint further alleged that t)o of the
children had been sub0ected to (arious acts of religious indoctrination 'from the beginning of the school
year in September, 1981'H 18 that the defendant teachers had 'on a daily basis' led their classes in
saying certain prayers in unisonH 1/ that the minor children )ere e2posed to ostracism from their peer
group class members if they did not participateH 14 and that Ishmael @affree had repeatedly but
unsuccessfully re:uested that the de(otional ser(ices be stopped$ +he original complaint made no
reference to any Alabama statute$ ;/<" 9$S$ 88, /8=
5n @une /, 198", appellees filed an amended complaint seeGing class certification, 1 and on @une
8#, 198", they filed a second amended complaint naming the Do(ernor of Alabama and (arious state
officials as additional defendants$ In that amendment the appellees challenged the constitutionality of
three Alabama statutes- 1!1!"#, 1!1!"#$1, and 1!1!"#$"$ 1<
5n August ", 198", the District Court held an e(identiary hearing on appellees1 motion for a preliminary
in0unction$ At that hearing, State Senator Donald D$ ,olmes testified that he )as the 'prime sponsor'
of the bill that )as enacted in 1981 as 1!1!"#$1$ 18 ,e e2plained that the bill )as an 'effort to return
(oluntary prayer to our public schools $ $ $ it is a beginning and a step in the right direction$' 19 Apart
from the purpose to return (oluntary prayer to public school, Senator ,olmes une:ui(ocally testified
that he had 'no other purpose in mind$' "# A )eeG after the hearing, the District Court entered a
preliminary in0unction$ "1 +he court held that appellees )ere liGely to pre(ail on the merits because the
enactment of 1!1!"#$1 and 1!1!"#$" did not reflect a clearly secular purpose$ "" ;/<" 9$S$ 88, //=
In ?o(ember 198", the District Court held a /!day trial on the merits$ +he e(idence related primarily to
the 1981!198" academic year ! the year after the enactment of 1!1!"#$1 and prior to the enactment of
1!1!"#$"$ +he District Court found that during that academic year each of the minor plaintiffs1 teachers
had led classes in prayer acti(ities, e(en after being informed of appellees1 ob0ections to these
acti(ities$ "8
In its lengthy conclusions of la), the District Court re(ie)ed a number of opinions of this Court
interpreting the ;/<" 9$S$ 88, /4= *stablishment Clause of the First Amendment, and then embarGed
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) 4
on a fresh e2amination of the :uestion )hether the First Amendment imposes any barrier to the
establishment of an official religion by the State of Alabama$ After re(ie)ing at length )hat it percei(ed
to be ne)ly disco(ered historical e(idence, the District Court concluded that 'the establishment clause
of the first amendment to the 9nited States Constitution does not prohibit the state from establishing a
religion$' "/ In a separate opinion, the District Court dismissed appellees1 challenge to the three
Alabama statutes because of a failure to state any claim for )hich relief could be granted$ +he court1s
dismissal of this challenge )as also based on its conclusion that the *stablishment Clause did not bar
the States from establishing a religion$ "4 ;/<" 9$S$ 88, /=
+he Court of Appeals consolidated the t)o casesH not surprisingly, it re(ersed$ +he Court of Appeals
noted that this Court had considered and had re0ected the historical arguments ;/<" 9$S$ 88, /<= that
the District Court found persuasi(e, and that the District Court had misapplied the doctrine of stare
decisis$ " +he Court of Appeals then held that the teachers1 religious acti(ities (iolated the
*stablishment Clause of the First Amendment$ "< Cith respect to 1!1!"#$1 and 1!1!"#$", the Court
of Appeals stated that 'both statutes ad(ance and encourage religious acti(ities$' "8 +he Court of
Appeals then :uoted )ith appro(al the District Court1s finding that 1!1!"#$1, and 1!1!"#$", )ere
efforts 'Jto encourage a religious acti(ity$ *(en though these statutes are permissi(e in form, it is
ne(ertheless state in(ol(ement respecting an establishment of religion$1' "9 +hus, the Court of Appeals
concluded that both statutes )ere 'specifically the type )hich the Supreme Court addressed in *ngel
;($ >itale, 8<# 9$S$ /"1 (19"%=$' 8# ;/<" 9$S$ 88, /8=
A suggestion for rehearing en banc )as denied o(er the dissent of four 0udges )ho e2pressed the
opinion that the full court should reconsider the panel decision insofar as it held 1!1!"#$1
unconstitutional$ 81 Chen this Court noted probable 0urisdiction, it limited argument to the :uestion that
those four 0udges thought )orthy of reconsideration$ +he 0udgment of the Court of Appeals )ith respect
to the other issues presented by the appeals )as affirmed$ Callace ($ @affree, / 9$S$ 9"/ (198/%$
II
5ur unanimous affirmance of the Court of Appeals1 0udgment concerning 1!1!"#$" maGes it
unnecessary to comment at length on the District Court1s remarGable conclusion that the Federal
Constitution imposes no obstacle to Alabama1s establishment of a state religion$ Aefore analy&ing the
precise issue that is presented to us, it is ne(ertheless appropriate to recall ho) firmly embedded in
our constitutional 0urisprudence is the proposition that the se(eral States ha(e no greater po)er to
restrain the indi(idual freedoms ;/<" 9$S$ 88, /9= protected by the First Amendment than does the
Congress of the 9nited States$
As is plain from its te2t, the First Amendment )as adopted to curtail the po)er of Congress to interfere
)ith the indi(idual1s freedom to belie(e, to )orship, and to e2press himself in accordance )ith the
dictates of his o)n conscience$ 8" 9ntil the Fourteenth Amendment )as added to the Constitution, the
First Amendment1s restraints on the e2ercise of federal po)er simply did not apply to the States$ 88 Aut
)hen the Constitution )as amended to prohibit any State from depri(ing any person of liberty )ithout
due process of la), that Amendment imposed the same substanti(e limitations on the States1 po)er to
legislate that the First Amendment had al)ays imposed on the Congress1 po)er$ +his Court has
confirmed and endorsed this elementary proposition of la) time and time again$ 8/ ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 4#=
Criting for a unanimous Court in Cant)ell ($ Connecticut, 81# 9$S$ "9, 8#8 (19/#%, @ustice Boberts
e2plained-
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) 5
'$ $ $ Ce hold that the statute, as construed and applied to the appellants, depri(es them of their liberty
)ithout due process of la) in contra(ention of the Fourteenth Amendment$ +he fundamental concept
of liberty embodied in that Amendment embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment$
+he First Amendment declares that Congress shall maGe no la) respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free e2ercise thereof$ +he Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the
legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such la)s$ +he constitutional inhibition
of legislation on the sub0ect of religion has a double aspect$ 5n the one hand, it forestalls compulsion
by la) of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of )orship$ Freedom of conscience
and freedom to adhere to such religious organi&ation or form of )orship as the indi(idual may choose
cannot be restricted by la)$ 5n the other hand, it safeguards the free e2ercise of the chosen form of
religion$'
Cant)ell, of course, is but one case in )hich the Court has identified the indi(idual1s freedom of
conscience as the central liberty that unifies the (arious Clauses in the First Amendment$ 84 *nlarging
on this theme, +,* C,I*F @9S+IC* recently )rote- ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 41=
'Ce begin )ith the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment
against state action includes both the right to speaG freely and the right to refrain from speaGing at all$
See Aoard of *ducation ($ Aarnette, 819 9$S$ "/, 88 !8/ (19/8%H id$, at /4 (3urphy, @$,
concurring%$ A system )hich secures the right to proselyti&e religious, political, and ideological causes
must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts$ +he right to speaG and
the right to refrain from speaGing are complementary components of the broader concept of Jindi(idual
freedom of mind$1 Id$, at 8<$
$ $ $ $ $
'+he Court in Aarnette, supra, )as faced )ith a state statute )hich re:uired public school students to
participate in daily public ceremonies by honoring the flag both )ith )ords and traditional salute
gestures$ In o(erruling its prior decision in 3iners(ille District ($ Dobitis, 81# 9$S$ 48 (19/#%, the Court
held that Ja ceremony so touching matters of opinion and political attitude may ;not= be imposed upon
the indi(idual by official authority under po)ers committed to any political organi&ation under our
Constitution$1 819 9$S$, at 8 $ Compelling the affirmati(e act of a flag salute in(ol(ed a more serious
infringement upon personal liberties than the passi(e act of carrying the state motto on a license plate,
but the difference is essentially one of degree$ ,ere, as in Aarnette, )e are faced )ith a state measure
)hich forces an indi(idual, as part of his daily life ! indeed constantly )hile his automobile is in public
(ie) ! to be an ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 4"= instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of
(ie) he finds unacceptable$ In doing so, the State Jin(ades the sphere of intellect and spirit )hich it is
the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reser(e from all official control$1 Id$, at /"$'
Cooley ($ 3aynard, /8# 9$S$ <#4, <1/ !<14 (19<<%$
@ust as the right to speaG and the right to refrain from speaGing are complementary components of a
broader concept of indi(idual freedom of mind, so also the indi(idual1s freedom to choose his o)n
creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the ma0ority$ At
one time it )as thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect o(er
another, but )ould not re:uire e:ual respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the
adherent of a non!Christian faith such as Islam or @udaism$ 8 Aut )hen the underlying principle has
been e2amined in the crucible of litigation, the ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 48= Court has unambiguously concluded
that the indi(idual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to
select any religious faith or none at all$ 8< +his conclusion deri(es support not only from the interest in
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) 6
respecting the indi(idual1s freedom of conscience, but also from the con(iction that religious beliefs
)orthy of respect are the product of free and (oluntary choice by the faithful, 88 ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 4/=
and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance e2tends beyond
intolerance among Christian sects ! or e(en intolerance among 'religions' ! to encompass intolerance
of the disbelie(er and the uncertain$ 89 ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 44=
As @ustice @acGson elo:uently stated in Cest >irginia Aoard of *ducation ($ Aarnette, 819 9$S$ "/,
/" (19/8%-
'If there is any fi2ed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can
prescribe )hat shall be orthodo2 in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force
citi&ens to confess by )ord or act their faith therein$'
+he State of Alabama, no less than the Congress of the 9nited States, must respect that basic truth$
III
Chen the Court has been called upon to construe the breadth of the *stablishment Clause, it has
e2amined the criteria de(eloped o(er a period of many years$ +hus, in 6emon ($ 7urt&man, /#8 9$S$
#", 1" !18 (19<1%, )e )rote-
'*(ery analysis in this area must begin )ith consideration of the cumulati(e criteria de(eloped by the
Court o(er many years$ +hree such tests may be gleaned from our cases$ First, the statute must ha(e
a secular legislati(e purposeH second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither ad(ances
nor inhibits religion, Aoard of *ducation ($ Allen, 89" 9$S$ "8, "/8 (198%H finally, the statute must not
foster Jan e2cessi(e ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 4= go(ernment entanglement )ith religion$1 Cal& ;($ +a2 Comm1n,
89< 9$S$ /, </ (19<#%=$'
It is the first of these three criteria that is most plainly implicated by this case$ As the District Court
correctly recogni&ed, no consideration of the second or third criteria is necessary if a statute does not
ha(e a clearly secular purpose$ /# For e(en though a statute that is moti(ated in part by a religious
purpose may satisfy the first criterion, see, e$ g$, Abington School District ($ Schempp, 8</ 9$S$ "#8,
"9 !8#8 (198% (AB*??A?, @$, concurring%, the First Amendment re:uires that a statute must be
in(alidated if it is entirely moti(ated by a purpose to ad(ance religion$ /1
In applying the purpose test, it is appropriate to asG ')hether go(ernment1s actual purpose is to
endorse or disappro(e of religion$' /" In this case, the ans)er to that :uestion is dispositi(e$ For the
record not only pro(ides us )ith an unambiguous affirmati(e ans)er, but it also re(eals that the
enactment of 1!1!"#$1 )as not moti(ated by any clearly secular purpose ! indeed, the statute had no
secular purpose$
I>
+he sponsor of the bill that became 1!1!"#$1, Senator Donald ,olmes, inserted into the legislati(e
record ! apparently ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 4<= )ithout dissent ! a statement indicating that the legislation )as
an 'effort to return (oluntary prayer' to the public schools$ /8 6ater Senator ,olmes confirmed this
purpose before the District Court$ In response to the :uestion )hether he had any purpose for the
legislation other than returning (oluntary prayer to public schools, he stated- '?o, I did not ha(e no
other purpose in mind$' // +he State did not present e(idence of any secular purpose$ /4 ;/<" 9$S$
88, 48=
+he unrebutted e(idence of legislati(e intent contained in the legislati(e record and in the testimony of
the sponsor of 1!1!"#$1 is confirmed by a consideration of the relationship bet)een this statute and
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) 7
the t)o other measures that )ere considered in this case$ +he District Court found that the 1981
statute and its 198" se:uel had a common, nonsecular purpose$ +he )holly religious character of the
later enactment is plainly e(ident from its te2t$ Chen the differences bet)een 1!1!"#$1 and its 19<8
predecessor, 1!1!"#, are e2amined, it is e:ually clear that the 1981 statute has the same )holly
religious character$
+here are only three te2tual differences bet)een 1!1!"#$1 and 1!1!"#- (1% the earlier statute applies
only to grades one through si2, )hereas 1!1!"#$1 applies to all gradesH ("% the earlier statute uses the
)ord 'shall' )hereas 1!1!"#$1 uses the )ord 'may'H (8% the earlier statute refers ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 49=
only to 'meditation' )hereas 1!1!"#$1 refers to 'meditation or (oluntary prayer$' +he first difference is
of no rele(ance in this litigation because the minor appellees )ere in Gindergarten or second grade
during the 1981!198" academic year$ +he second difference )ould also ha(e no impact on this
litigation because the mandatory language of 1!1!"# continued to apply to grades one through si2$ /
+hus, the only significant te2tual difference is the addition of the )ords 'or (oluntary prayer$'
+he legislati(e intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, :uite different from merely
protecting e(ery student1s right to engage in (oluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence
during the schoolday$ +he 19<8 statute already protected that right, containing nothing that pre(ented
any student from engaging in (oluntary prayer during a silent minute of meditation$ /< Appellants ha(e
not identified any secular purpose that )as not fully ser(ed by 1!1!"# before the enactment of 1!1!
"#$1$ +hus, only t)o conclusions are consistent )ith the te2t of 1!1!"#$1- (1% the statute )as enacted
to con(ey a message of state endorsement and promotion of prayerH or ("% the statute )as enacted for
no purpose$ ?o one suggests that the statute )as nothing but a meaningless or irrational act$ /8
Ce must, therefore, conclude that the Alabama 6egislature intended to change e2isting la) /9 and
that it )as moti(ated ;/<" 9$S$ 88, #= by the same purpose that the Do(ernor1s ans)er to the
second amended complaint e2pressly admittedH that the statement inserted in the legislati(e history
re(ealedH and that Senator ,olmes1 testimony franGly described$ +he legislature enacted 1!1!"#$1,
despite the e2istence of 1!1!"# for the sole purpose of e2pressing the State1s endorsement of prayer
acti(ities for one minute at the beginning of each schoolday$ +he addition of 'or (oluntary prayer'
indicates that the State intended to characteri&e prayer as a fa(ored practice$ Such an endorsement is
not consistent )ith the established principle that the go(ernment must pursue a course of complete
neutrality to)ard religion$ 4#
+he importance of that principle does not permit us to treat this as an inconse:uential case in(ol(ing
nothing more than a fe) )ords of symbolic speech on behalf of the political ma0ority$ 41 For )hene(er
the State itself speaGs on a religious ;/<" 9$S$ 88, 1= sub0ect, one of the :uestions that )e must asG
is ')hether the go(ernment intends to con(ey a message of endorsement or disappro(al of religion$'
4" +he )ell!supported concurrent findings of the District Court and the Court of Appeals ! that 1!1!
"#$1 )as intended to con(ey a message of state appro(al of prayer acti(ities in the public schools !
maGe it unnecessary, and indeed inappropriate, to e(aluate the practical significance of the addition of
the )ords 'or (oluntary prayer' to the statute$ 7eeping in mind, as )e must, 'both the fundamental
place held by the *stablishment Clause in our constitutional scheme and the myriad, subtle )ays in
)hich *stablishment Clause (alues can be eroded,' 48 )e conclude that 1!1!"#$1 (iolates the First
Amendment$
+he 0udgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed$
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) 8
It is so ordered$