Supreme Court Ruling on Prayer at Football Games
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) On June 19, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). The Santa Fe High School allowed a student elected by the student body and holding the office of "student council chaplain" to deliver a prayer over the public address system before each of varsity football game. At issue was whether this practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. During the course of the litigation, the school’s policies were modified to permit only nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer. Even with these modifications, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the football prayer policy was invalid. The Supreme Court granted the school district petition for certiorari and concludes that the district’s policy of permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause. The court rejected the school district’s argument that the use of civic or nonsectarian prayer minimized the intrusion on the audience as a whole. Citing this decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), the court states that such a majoritarian policy does not lessen the offense or isolation to the objectors, but at best it narrows their number, at worst increases their sense of isolation and affront. The Court finds that the degree of school involvement makes it clear that the pregame prayers bear the imprint of the state and thus put the school-age children who object in an untenable position. The district’s attempt to disengage itself from the religious messages by allowing the prayer based upon a student vote was found to actually increase the district’s entanglement. Again, citing the decision in Lee v. Weisman, the Supreme Court states that "preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and choice committed to the private sphere." The minority opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justices Scalia and Thomas joined, argued that the tone of the majority opinion bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life. The dissent severely criticizes the striking down of a policy before it has been put into practice and before any unconstitutional application has been established. It is argued that the district’s policy could be used to solemnized the student activity in a manner that would further a legitimate secular purpose. Finally, the dissent argues that there is a crucial difference between governmental speech endorsing religion, forbidden by the Establishment Clause and private speech endorsing religion which is protected by both the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Voluntary student prayer they would argue falls into the latter category. |