Zorach vs. Clauson

Zorach vs. Clauson Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioners, Zorach and other taxpayers and residents of  New York City (Petitioners), brought suit challenging the constitutionality of a released time time  program, which allowed children to leave school, with parental per mission, for religious instruction. Synopsis of Rule of Law. This case stands for the proposition that the Establish ment Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution) does not advocate h ostility toward religion and mere acknowledgment of a religious program, without  participation, is not unconstitutional. Facts. The released time time  program allowed children, with parental permission, to be  released from school for religious instruction. The instructions took place awa y from the school grounds and no school involvement was required, other than ack nowledging the students students  participation. The Petitioners brought suit challenging t he constitutionality of the program alleging that the prohibition against any la ws respecting the establishment of any religion also prohibited this voluntary p rogram. The Petitioners appealed from a judgment for the Respondents, Clauson an d other member of the Board of Education of the City of New York (Respondents) a nd the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) granted writs. Issue. The issue is simply whether New York, through its acceptance of the releas ed time time program, has engaged in the respect of an establishment of religion, with in the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Held. Affirmed. The Supreme Court held for the Respondents, noting that because instruction occu rred away from the schools and did not require school participation, no respect for a particular establishment had occurred. Additionally, the Supreme Court held that a philosophy of hostility toward relig ion cannot be read into the Bill of Rights. Just because the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the making of a law which will respect the establishm ent of religion, it does not necessarily follow that the government should be ho stile toward the exercise of religion, which would also be an abrogation of the Free Exercise Clause of the same amendment. Dissent. Justices Hugo Black (J. Black) and Robert Jackson (J. Jackson) wrote se parate dissents, both standing for the proposition that the majority had blurred  the line between the separation of church and state. Discussion. While the establishment clause prohibits governmental support of rel igion, it does not prohibit students from exercising their religions.