Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Background Information
Before 1995, a student elected to be Santa Fe High School's student council chaplain delivered a prayer over the public address system before each home varsity football game. Because of this, Mormon and Catholic students (or alumni) and their mothers filed a suit challenging the prayers as violations of the First Amendment.
While their suit was pending, the district created a new policy authorizing two student elections: a first to determine whether "invocations" should be delivered at games, and a second to select the spokesperson to deliver them (if the first election turned out favorable to invocations):
The board has chosen to permit the graduating senior class, with the advice and counsel of the senior class principal or designee, to elect by secret ballot to choose whether an invocation and benediction shall be part of the graduation exercise. If so chosen the class shall elect by secret ballot, from a list of student volunteers, students to deliver nonsectarian, nonproselytizing invocations and benedictions for the purpose of solemnizing their graduation ceremonies.
After an election authorizing prayers and selecting someone to deliver them, the District Court ordered a modification of the policy to permit only nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer. The Fifth Circuit Court, however, ruled that the football prayer policy was invalid even with the modification.
Court Decision
With Justice Stephens writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the District’s policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause. The justices relied heavily on the decision in Lee v. Weisman:
The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which `establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.'
It had been argued that these principles were not relevant to this case because the messages were private student speech, not public speech. The Court disagreed, holding that the delivery of a message on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of faculty, and following school policies which eencourage public prayer could not justifiably be called private speech.
Also relevant to this is the fact that the delivery of the prayer did not occur at a public forum where all manner of opinions are permitted:
The District simply does not evince an intent to open its ceremony to indiscriminate use by the student body generally, but, rather, allows only one student, the same student for the entire season, to give the invocation, which is subject to particular regulations that confine the content and topic of the student's message. The majoritarian process implemented by the District guarantees, by definition, that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced.
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the policy was different from the graduation prayer in Lee because it did not coerce students to participate in religious observances. The Court pointed out that one of the Establishment Clause's purposes is to remove debate over this kind of issue from governmental supervision or control. In the opinion of the Court, the election amounted to little more than an underhanded scheme to turn the school into a forum for religious debate. It also unjustifiably empowered a majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages - something government agencies have no business doing.
The Court also noted that the policy did have an element of coercion in it. For example, some students, such as cheerleaders, members of the band, and the team members themselves, are indeed required to attend football games. There is also the tremendous social pressure experienced by many students to be involved in activities like football. According to the Court, schools should not force students to choose between attending these games or to "risk facing a personally offensive religious ritual." The decision on this point reads:
School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherants that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherants that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.
One difficult issue was the argument that the Court had no business issuing a ruling because, so far, no invocation has yet been delivered under the relevant policy. It was on this point that the dissent by Chief Justice Rhenquist, with Justice Scalia and Thomas focused strongly. They agreed that policy at issue could be applied in an unconstitutional manner, but that courts should wait and see what hapened. Also according to the dissent:
...even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the Court's opinion; it bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. Neither the holding nor the tone of the opinion is faithful to the meaning of the Establishment Clause, when it is recalled that George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God."
However, it is unclear why, exactly, prohibiting students from voting on having religious rituals and then using school equipment to deliver said rituals to students - some of whom are forced to be there - is "hostile" to religion in public life.
Significance
This decision reaffirmed a long-running tradition at the court to strike down laws and policies which place students in an environment where they are forced to listen to the promotion of a particular, sectarian religious message. In the quote above, the Court made it clear that religion could not be used by the government to divide the community of students by making some of them feel like insiders and others feel like outsiders. It is because of this that religion has so often divided nations, and it was this which the authors of the Constitution wished to avoid.
Thus, in this decision, the majority of justices supported the principle that a neutral, secular government is necessary for the political inclusion of all citizens.
Further Information
-->