Classroom Crucifix Case II
Federal Republic of Germany Federal Constitutional Court
BVerfGE 93, 1 1 BvR 1087/91 (1987)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Under the Elementary Schools Act and Bavarian Act on Education and Public Instruction, the Bavarian State Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs (the ministry) (defendant) retained the power to regulate public schools in Bavaria. The ministry enacted § 13 of the School Regulations for Elementary Schools in Bavaria (VSO) of 21 June 1983, which required every public elementary school to affix a crucifix in each classroom. The regulations also provided that schools had to provide support to the religious upbringing of children through prayer and worship at the school. The regulations further required teachers and pupils to respect the religious beliefs of everyone within the school system. After exhausting their administrative remedies, a group of school-aged children and their parents (plaintiffs) challenged the law under Article 4(1) and Article 6(2) of the Basic Law. The parents followed the philosophy of Rudolph Steiner and argued that the depiction of the crucifixion violated this life philosophy. The Bavarian Higher Administrative Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Seidl, Söllner, Haas, J.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.