Embury 1 Kathleen Embury College Level C and E 6 th Period Supreme Court Writing Assignment 3/20/14 On June 19 th, 2000, Supreme Court Justice Stevens declared the majority verdict for the case Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe. This case concerning prayer in public schools would become a landmark decision in relation to lawful execution of the First Amendment rights concerning religion and the restrictions of the Establishment Clause. The majority stated that the student in question s ability to say a prayer in front of his classmates at a football game was unconstitutional and exceeded these limitations. Thus, they decided in favor of the petitioner, the anonymous Doe, against the school district and their policy that allowed the student speaker to offer a prayer. This conclusion was incorrectly decided as it distorts the very meaning of the Establishment Clause while setting dangerous precedents for Americans ability to practice their religion without excessive involvement from the government. Prior to the case, the school district had created a policy in which one student could be elected by the student body to say a message or invocation before a football game to solemnize the event, to promote good sportsmanship and student safety, and to establish the appropriate environment for the competition. 1 This was a revised version of their previous policy that mentioned prayer. When the elected student decided to say a prayer at a school game, two 1 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion
Embury 2 students and their parents argued that the act exceeded the limits that the Establishment Clause places on prayer in the public school. Because of this, they took the case to the Supreme Court. Deciding in support of the petitioner, Doe, the majority stated that the district had involved themselves in a student election decision. The policy stated that the student body would decide whether or not to have an election, and who the speaker would be at the football game. Since this policy was implemented by the district, the court decision ruled that they were unconstitutionally involving themselves. They argued that, while the policy did not say the word prayer, it did say other phrases that imply religious meaning, like solemnize the event, and invocation. 2 Also, the speech would be given using school property where almost everyone in the district could hear it, including the faculty. For these reasons, the majority said that the religious statement would be government endorsed and not private speech, which is unprotected by the First Amendment and violates the Establishment Clause. 3 These arguments were refuted by the dissent, which stated that the elected student chose what to say outside of the school s and government s influence, and therefore his or her speech would not be governmentally motivated. 4 The dissent additionally refuted the argument that the policy supported a religious association whole-heartedly, as the phrases solemnize the event, promote good sportsmanship and student safety, and establish the appropriate environment for the competition could be taken as secular statements. 5 Secular interpretations, according to the dissent, should always be considered above religious ones since many secular phrases could 2 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.
Embury 3 be understood as religious. 6 As Chief Justice Rehnquist stated, Sporting events often begin with a solemn rendition of our national anthem, with its concluding verse, And this be our motto: In God is our trust. 7 The inference that the district supported a majority election in which a student was chosen based on whether or not he would say a prayer is incorrect. Instead, the twofold election allowed students to select someone perhaps based on whether the person would give a prayer, but also possibly because of his/her popularity or ability to speak. 8 Furthermore, since the courts ruled that this election was unacceptable, they also should have invalidated other school elections in which those chosen, such as Prom King or Queen, are allowed to make speeches that include a prayer. 9 In such circumstances as these there is no violation of the Establishment clause, as there was not one with the matter of the case that was at hand. Another argument of the majority was that it was unfair for the speaker to be elected by a majority of the student body as minorities would not be represented. They justified this position by saying that one of America s core beliefs is that everyone should participate and have a say (in government, etc.). They further stated that since the speech was to be given at such a big event, peer pressure would force some students into having to make a hard decision between going to a popular sports event where they may be offended or uncomfortable, and not participating in the school spirit. This would imply government coercion of the social pressure concerning adoption of religion, and thus violate the Establishment Clause. 10 These points become clearly unsound when looking at commonly accepted American and governmental practices. The majority s statement that the policy forced children to be in an 6 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion 7 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, dissenting opinion < http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/530/290> 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid.
Embury 4 environment where they would hear religious statements/prayers that could make them uncomfortable is invalid as students could listen while others pray during a normal day at school. In these situations, those who pray are not punished for their actions. It is each student s decision whether or not to listen or participate. Also, many of America s customary elections are decided by a majority vote or in a similar way. 11 For example, the 17th Amendment states that senators shall be elected in this way by popular vote. The argument that the school district s election process was not fair nullifies such elections and should therefore apply to all election processes if the court is to believe so. If they were to take on this view, America s system would be changed drastically, most likely against popular opinion and not for the better. In addition to the mainly constitutionally based arguments, the majority brought in several other cases from the school district to further their point. Such situations with the district included the following: a prayer at graduation, encouragement of religious clubs, the giving out of Gideon Bibles on school ground, and the rebuking of children that held minority religious beliefs. This information was used to show how the district was going out of its way to support Christianity. These arguments, however, were beyond the point. The case was about the district s policy of having an elected student to speak at football games. The Court was not hearing a case about these additional procedures, and as far as they were concerned, nobody had brought about complaints about the policies, at least not enough to bring the issues to the courts. Therefore, it was inappropriate of the majority to reference this information in their opinion statement. After covering the more prominent points in their argument, the court ended by stating that a policy must be neutral in all aspects or be a violation of the Establishment Clause. However, this 11 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, dissenting opinion < http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/530/290>
Embury 5 rule had never been used before. Neutrality had only been an observed issue in freedom of speech cases concerning strict scrutiny. To make a new rule, the rule should be debated explicitly and entirely before being used as such. 12 Refutation of the majority s arguments is not the end of the story. In addition, the ruling for Santa Fe v. Doe violates other constitutional rights, precedents set by previous cases, and the purpose of the Establishment clause. Before providing their counterarguments, the dissent referenced the tone that the court held while discussing the case. The character and attitude was blatantly against and hostile to any public forms of religion. 13 The Establishment Clause was originally made to create an outlook of peace and acceptance between almost all religious practices 14 ( almost all is used here as some practices, such as the custom of sacrificing people, may break laws that apply to everyone.) This air of aggression, the dissent stated, was in contradiction of the sole purpose of the Establishment Clause. 15 In spite of what the majority stated, Santa Fe passes applicable tests made by the Supreme Court as a result of other cases. Following the Lemon Test founded in the case Lemon v. Kurtzman, the phrases solemnize the event and promote good sportsmanship, 16 along with the rest of the district s policy, can first and foremost easily be interpreted as having a secular purpose. 17 For example, before some major and minor league sports games, the national anthem is solemnly sung to remind players and the audience of traditions and why they should behave well. Religious practices were not mentioned in the district s policy. Furthermore, there was no 12 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion 13 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Chanice, "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron., 144
Embury 6 advancement or holding back of a religion, as students would have known that the election decision was made by other students and not for religious purposes. 18 Finally, there was no excessive government involvement as the district had a hands off approach to the election and elected student. 19 The case also passes the Endorsement Test, which was founded in the case Lynch v. Donelly. The policy was unrelated to the government for the same reasons argued against the majority concerning this issue, and does not help one religion over the other since it contained no religious words. To support their judgments, the majority brought the case Lee v. Weisman, in which they ruled that a rabbi cannot give a directed prayer at a graduation speech that was overlooked by school faculty. However, since this speech was controlled by the school, it was government speech and does not apply to the private student speech in the Santa Fe case for reasons stated above in refutation of the majority arguments. 20 The decision from Marsh v. Chambers ruled that a chaplain has the right to say a prayer in front of the legislature without violating the Establishment Clause because of embedded tradition. 21 In comparison to the Santa Fe case, one would be hard put to find the difference between this prayer and a student praying at a football game. It seems nearly impossible that such rulings could have been decided as the prayer in the Marsh case was government endorsed, thus contrasting even more with the district s policy. 22 Following the Marsh ruling, it is only logical to assume that a student would be able to say a prayer in front of his fellow students. Ruling otherwise denies precedent and 18 Chanice, "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron., 144 19 Ibid., 145 20 Ibid., 157 21 Ibid., 139 22 Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, dissenting opinion < http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/530/290>
Embury 7 takes away the student s right to free speech. Each student had the ability to vote as he/she wished, and the selected student could write a speech with no interference from the district. Calling the policy unconstitutional takes away these rights. In addition to the constitutional and historical explanations for why this case was decided wrongly, reasoning also demands to be considered. A student is allowed to say a prayer in the cafeteria in front of his fellows where the school and faculty may hear him. The question of why, then, a student would be disallowed from saying a prayer in front of his school on the school s football field, is raised. Both instances involve prayer while using school property (even if such use may be considered negligible). In the former case, the school s food and cafeteria are used, and in the second, the loudspeaker and field. Logically, if one act is considered constitutional, then the other should also be declared as such. Fundamentally, the court decision could also be seen as a misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause as the Founding Fathers would have believed correct. 23 The Founders wanted a wall of separation between the church and state, but only spoke of this when talking about the federal government. 24 The Bill of Rights was made so that such rules would not apply to individuals to protect them from the state and federal governments. The Establishment Clause, then, was not meant to apply to state administrations. 25 Since the Founders did not intend to apply the First Amendment rights to states at the time, it seems that they supported the then-current relations between church and state. 26 The Northwest Ordinance, in fact, set up land specifically for religious schools. Therefore, following what the Founders most likely would have wanted, states should be allowed to disregard the church and state regulations as they had 23 Chanice, "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron., 146 24 Ibid., 139 25 Ibid., 145 26 Ibid., 146
Embury 8 been able to in the Founders days. 27 This argument ignores the 14 th Amendment, which incorporates many parts of the Bill of Rights to apply to states, for the purpose of simply considering what the Founding Fathers would have believed to be the right decision in Santa Fe v. Doe. The question goes into deeper matters, such as the interpretation of the Bill of Rights, bigger than, the one at hand with this case. Nonetheless, the argument stands valid as the issue in Santa Fe v. Doe is included within these deeper matters. In spite of the arguments against it, the decision in Santa Fe v. Doe does more than cause controversy over its validity. It sets a precedent for future cases in which the Court can more easily find loopholes in which to take away people s religious rights. The rules and tests that have resulted from this and similar cases create confusion, controversy, and chaos in questioning how the Establishment Clause can and should be interpreted. 28 Such confusion could easily create conflict, as well as loopholes for possible injustices in future cases. The definition of what government endorsement means could be narrowed even more using the decision that praying on a school s football field with their loud speaker was excessive involvement. Constitutionally valid attempts at expressing religion in states or, more specifically, in schools, could be restricted further. Such restrictions may, perhaps, go as far as taking away an individual s right to pray in public. The conflict created could ultimately introduce higher issues with the Free Exercise Clause in addition to the Establishment Clause. Although no evidently applicable examples have shown up in the courts since, these consequences could be brought about without too much difficulty. Because of the precedents that the Santa Fe decision establishes, Americans religious freedom will likely be compromised in days to come. 27 Chanice, "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron., 147 28 Ibid., 139
Embury 9 Bibliography Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, main opinion and dissenting opinion Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 2000, dissenting opinion < http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/530/290> Lawrence J. Chanice, "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: Establishment Clause Chaos on the High School Gridiron. Vol. 75: Iss. 1, Article 7, St. John's Law Review. 2001.