Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: mapping the future of student-led, student-initiated prayer in public schools.

Extract

---

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe: mapping the future of student-led, student-initiated prayer in public schools.

I. INTRODUCTION

This note will discuss how, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, (1) the Supreme Court, in deciding that a school district's policy of permitting state-endorsed student prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, established a map by which student-led, student-initiated prayer may be allowed in public schools. Part II outlines the facts of the case, the particulars of the school district's policy, and the procedural history of the case in federal court. (2) Part III discusses the evolution of Establishment Clause jurisprudence and its relationship to the three tests used to determine whether a constitutional violation has occurred. (3) Part IV explores the distinction between prayer as private speech and prayer as government speech, and analyzes the application of the three tests to the school district's policy. (4) Part V notes criticisms of Santa Fe and argues that the Supreme Court's decision does not inhibit school prayer, but actually creates a roadmap for students and school districts to appropriately accommodate religious beliefs and facilitate religious activities. (5) Part VI analyzes decisions construing Santa Fe and demonstrates how its holding has not been used as a vehicle to eliminate religious beliefs and activities from the public schools. (6) Part VII concludes that the Santa Fe decision will not be used to eliminate prayer from public schools, but, instead, has reaffirmed the Court's support for constitutionally permissible, student-led student-initiated prayer in public schools. (7) Finally, Appendix B presents a case study implementing the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy in five hypothetical school districts, determining the policy's constitutionality in each district, and comparing each outcome with the decision in Santa Fe. (8)

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF SANTA FE

The Supreme Court's decision in Santa Fe came about following a series of policies regarding student prayer at graduation ceremonies and sporting events, implemented by the Santa Fe Independent School District (SFISD). Prior to the events that gave rise to the litigation, (9) no written school policy addressed prayers at graduation ceremonies or football games. (10) Nonetheless, SFISD permitted student council officers to maintain an elective office of "student council `chaplain,'" and allowed students to deliver prayers at home football games, graduation ceremonies, and other school events. (11)

In June 1993, SFISD drafted--for the first time--a written policy prohibiting school officials from "direct[ing] the performance of a formal religious exercise at [graduation] ceremonies." (12) After, and in response to, the June 1994 graduation ceremony--which included an overtly Christian invocation, benediction, and salutatory address (13)--SFISD amended its policy to permit the election of students "to deliver nonsectarian, nonproselytizing invocations and benedictions for the purpose of solemnizing their graduation ceremonies." (14)

In April 1995, a Mormon family and a Catholic family (hereinafter "the Does"), (15) both of whose children attended SFISD, filed suit in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, contending that SFISD's policy regarding student prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (16) (The Does also sued several employees, administrators, board members, and trustees of SFISD in their individual capacities.) (17) The Does accumulated evidence of a wide variety of "disturbing incidents," including a teacher's disparaging remarks regarding Mormonism and the distribution of Baptist literature by teachers. (18)

In May 1995, as an "`emergency' response" to the district court's granting of a preliminary injunction while the action was still pending in court, SFISD changed its policy and permitted, but did not require, student prayer to be delivered at football games. (19) After another review of the policy in July 1995, SFISD amended it again, this time in anticipatory response to future court orders enjoining their policy. (20) The amendment provided that only upon the issuance of such a court order would the message delivered at the graduation ceremony be required to be nonsectarian and nonproselytizing in nature. (21) It was not until October 1995 that SFISD instituted an official policy specifically permitting prayer at football games. (22) The October 1995 policy provided that the students would vote on whether prayer should be delivered at the football games. (23) If the student body voted in the affirmative, then it would elect, by secret ballot from a list of volunteers, a student chaplain to deliver the prayer. (24)

The district court enjoined SFISD from enforcing the first, "openended" alternative of the October 1995 policy. (25) Both the Does and SFISD appealed to the Fifth Circuit. (26) On appeal, SFISD argued that the first alternative policy was permissible, and that, even if the first alterna...

See the full content of this document

---