Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2004
Publication Information
5 Engage 131 (2004).
Abstract
From the Introduction
Judges, lawyers, and scholars all cite the 1947 case, Everson v. Board of Education, as the cornerstone of Establishment Clause doctrine. They are right to do so. The Everson Court took two path-breaking steps: incorporation and strict separation. The justices there held, for the first time, that the Fourteenth Amendment made the Establishment Clause applicable to state action. Then they offered a novel account of what non-establishment meant. In sweeping language (which you can find at 330 U.S. 15 - 16) they held that it meant more than equality among religions. By requiring that all government authority in the United States be neutral as well between religion and non-religion, the Everson Court called for a secular public square.
McCollum v. Board of Education is really the decisive Establishment Clause case. Why? The result in Everson left many wondering just what non-establishment meant. The worriers included the dissenting justices. They welcomed McCollum as a chance to consolidate the rhetorical beachhead carved out in Everson. They succeeded.
Recommended Citation
Gerard V. Bradley,
The Prodigal Argument: McCollum v. Board of Education,
5 Engage 131 (2004)..
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1751
Comments
Professor Bradley wrote an introduction to the transcript of the oral argument in McCollum v. Board of Education.