State Court Regents: Fill & Download for Free

I assume the querent is referring to Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), which was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools.The factual background demonstrates why the Court ruled as it did. I quote from the well done summary on this case in Wikipedia: “The state of New York approved a piece of legislation which encouraged students to start their school days with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer with the text:Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.The case was brought by a group of families of public school students in New Hyde Park from the Herricks Union Free School District who sued the school board president William J. Vitale, Jr. The families argued that the voluntary prayer written by the state board of regents to "Almighty God" contradicted their religious beliefs. Led by Steven I. Engel, a Jewish man, the plaintiffs sought to challenge the constitutionality of the state's prayer in school policy. They were supported by groups opposed to the school prayer including rabbinical organizations, Ethical Culture, and Jewish organizations. The acting parties were not members of one particular religious persuasion, nor all atheists. For example, despite being listed in the court papers as an atheist, plaintiff Lawrence Roth later denied that and described himself as religious but disagreed with prayer.The plaintiffs argued that opening the school day with such a prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment), which states, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" The governments of twenty-two states submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court urging affirmance of the New York Court of Appeals decision that upheld the constitutionality of the prayer.The American Jewish Committee, the Synagogue Council of America, and the American Ethical Union each submitted briefs urging the Court to instead reverse and rule that the prayer was unconstitutional”The decision was based on the First Amendment to the Constitution forbidding the government from supporting religion. I again turn to Wikipedia: “In a 6–1 decision, the Supreme Court held that reciting government-written prayers in public schools was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Black explained the importance of separation between church and state by giving a lengthy history of the issue, beginning with the 16th century in England. He noted that prayer is a religious activity by its very nature, and that prescribing such a religious activity for school children violates the Establishment Clause.The Court rejected the defendant's arguments that students were not asked to observe any specific established religion, that the traditional heritage of the nation was religious, and that the prayer was voluntary. The Court held that the mere promotion of a religion was sufficient to establish a violation, even if that promotion was not coercive. The Court further held that the fact that the prayer was vaguely-enough worded not to promote any particular religion was not a sufficient defense, as it still promoted a family of religions (those that recognize "Almighty God"), which still violated the Establishment Clause.In a concurring opinion, Justice Douglas argued that the Establishment Clause was also violated when the government granted financial aid to religious schools. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stewart contended that the Establishment Clause was originally written to abolish the idea of a state-sponsored church, and not to stop a non-mandatory "brief non-denominational prayer".”

Yes.The dissenting opinion carries the weight of the reputations of the justices who wrote it or agreed with it, and with the number of justices.In a liberal case, if the nine justices reach an 8 to 1 decision, and the one dissenter is the most conservative member of the court, that signals lawyers and judges around the country that the decision of the majority is likely to stand.If the nine justices reach a 5 to 4 decision, or in the most famous case of Bakke versus California Board of Regents, a four – four – one decision, the country is put on notice that the decision is in a very precarious position. It's clear that if that one justice has a change of heart, the law will be different; similarly, if that one justice retires, the issue will be considered ripe for re-examination by people on both sides of the issue.This is exactly what happened in the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - Wikipedia The case presented two questions:is the use of race ever permissible in medical school admissions decisions?was race used appropriately in this case?For judges voted yes to both questions. Four justices voted no to both questions. One justice, Lewis Powell, voted yes to the first question but no to the second. This created a 5 to 4 decision, but there was in fact only one justice who agreed with the entirety of the 5 to 4 decision.As a result, when Justice Powell retired, state courts and colleges all over the country decided that the issue was ripe for relitigation.The Court may soon be in the same position again. Now that Donald Trump has appointed one conservative person to the Supreme Court, the country, and perhaps the world, awaits Justice Ginsburg's decision whether to continue on the court even though she's in precarious health. She may try to remain on the bench until there is a different president; and she may succeed, or she may not. If Donald Trump is given a second seat on the Supreme Court, many decisions will face reconsideration; the country most fears decisions about abortion and birth control as being ripe for relitigation.

The Supreme Court has been overturning state and local laws since 1810. The earliest example is Fletcher v. Peck, where the Court ruled that Georgia's legislature had run afoul of the Constitution. More recent examples include Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, and District of Columbia v. Heller.Why does the Court do this? In 1803, the Court declared that it was its job to review laws and strike down the ones that it judged inconsistent with the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison). Some have always disliked this, but they've never marshalled enough support to take this power away from the Court via a constitutional amendment.