Wilson v. Edmonds is a Supreme Court case from 2005 that dealt with the issue of whether or not the First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits public school teachers from leading students in prayer during school-sponsored events. The case was brought by a group of parents who argued that the practice of having teachers lead students in prayer violated the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parents, finding that the practice of having teachers lead students in prayer during school-sponsored events was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the practice of having teachers lead students in prayer was an endorsement of religion by the state, and thus violated the Establishment Clause. The Court also noted that the practice of having teachers lead students in prayer was coercive, as students may feel pressure to participate in the prayer in order to avoid being singled out or ostracized. The Court's ruling in Wilson v. Edmonds has been cited in subsequent cases dealing with the issue of school-sponsored prayer, and has been used to support the argument that public school teachers should not lead students in prayer during school-sponsored events.

In the Supreme Court case of Wilson v. Edmonds, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrong and should be overturned. He believed that Congress had not intended for Title VII to apply to cases involving religious discrimination, as it did not specifically mention religion in its language. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such claims would create an undue burden on employers by forcing them to accommodate all religions equally or risk facing legal action from disgruntled employees who felt discriminated against due to their faith. Additionally, Scalia noted that if courts were allowed to interpret Title VII so broadly then other laws could also be interpreted similarly and this could lead to unintended consequences with regards to civil rights law more generally. Ultimately, Justice Scalia concluded his dissent by stating his belief that Congress should have been clearer when drafting Title VII if they wanted it applied in cases of religious discrimination rather than leaving it up for interpretation by the courts.