Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Read a random definition: IOLTA

A quick definition of Lee v. Weisman (1992):

Lee v. Weisman was a court case about prayer in public schools. The court decided that it was not okay for a public school to have a prayer during graduation because it goes against the rule that the government cannot promote any religion. The court said that the school was making students participate in the prayer, even if they didn't want to, and that was not fair. The court also said that even standing in silence during the prayer was enough to count as participating. So, the school had to stop having prayers during graduation.

A more thorough explanation:

Lee v. Weisman is a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992. It was about prayer and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment is a part of the Constitution that protects people's freedom of religion. The case was about whether it was okay for a public school to include a prayer in its graduation ceremony.

The case started when the principal of a middle school in Providence, Rhode Island invited a Rabbi to give a prayer at the graduation ceremony. One of the parents, Daniel Weisman, didn't think it was right for a public school to have a religious prayer at a school event. He asked the court to stop the school from doing it.

The Supreme Court agreed with Weisman. They said that the school's prayer was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause says that the government can't make any laws that establish a religion or favor one religion over another.

The Court said that the school's prayer was a state-sponsored event because it was part of the graduation ceremony. They also said that the students were being forced to participate in the prayer because they had to attend the ceremony and stand in silence during the prayer. The Court said that this was not fair to students who didn't want to participate in the prayer.

For example, if a public school had a graduation ceremony and invited a priest to give a prayer, that would be unconstitutional because it would be favoring one religion over others. It would also be unfair to students who didn't want to participate in the prayer.

This case is important because it helps to protect people's freedom of religion. It also helps to make sure that public schools don't favor one religion over others.

leave year | legacy

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
9:31
some people hate him. some people love him, but he a real one: https://youtu.be/w5oEqiVQcF4?t=173
9:32
[kevin oleary]
worthless i trust you implicitly you know what it will happen now.
worthless i trust you implicitly you know what it will happen now.
worthless i trust you implicitly you know what it will happen now.
worthless i trust you implicitly you know what it will happen now.
worthless i trust you implicitly you know what it will happen now.
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
9:34
I mean if Fordham doesn't release today I will purposefully get on a train, go to new york, and then take the stinkiest shit inside the admission office's toilet (potentially clogging it and forcing them to get a plumber)
IS IT ONLY ON MY END WHY DID THAT SEND TEN MILLION TIMES
HELLO
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
9:35
it sent a million times lol
WHAT HAPPENED
yeah i thought you were tweaking for a second
i'm so sorry everyone what the actual fuck this website hates me
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
9:35
Jack's just tweaking on LSD no biggie
to be fair this accurately represents my mental state
election day psychosis coming in hot (fordham)
usc pls pull through .....
i literally just need one A so i can relax before my ED decision
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
9:38
oh that's right USC might release
soapy
9:43
USC still has not looked at my app
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
9:43
when did you submit soapy?
soapy
9:44
10/16
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
9:44
to be fair it took them almost 2 months for me to go under review
soapy
9:44
Feelin a bit stressed, as I've got no date change for Michigan either despite applying 10/7
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
9:45
I have not had a date change either for Mich but I've seen people get in without one so who knows
I applied 9/25 to like 6 schools and some (Houston) have no date change yet so dw
soapy
9:46
But do people get in without addresses going long?
WorthlessAttractiveZombie
9:46
it's tough to tell because a lot of people type out their addresses long to begin with
soapy
9:46
Ah. I didn't. Looking back, my Mich supplement kind of sucks, so there's that
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.