SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. SCHOOL DISTRICT V.

DOEDOE

Argued: March 29, 2000 – Decided June 19, 2000Argued: March 29, 2000 – Decided June 19, 2000

By By

Neil FastresNeil Fastres

Background:Background:

A student elected as Santa Fe High A student elected as Santa Fe High School's student council chaplain School's student council chaplain delivered a prayer over the public delivered a prayer over the public address system before each home address system before each home varsity football game. varsity football game.

Respondents, Mormon and Catholic Respondents, Mormon and Catholic students and their mothers, filed a students and their mothers, filed a suit challenging this practice and suit challenging this practice and others under the Establishment others under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Clause of the First Amendment.

Petitioner school district adopted a policy, Petitioner school district adopted a policy, which authorizes two student elections, the which authorizes two student elections, the first to determine whether “invocations” first to determine whether “invocations” should be delivered at games, and the second should be delivered at games, and the second to select the spokesperson to deliver them. to select the spokesperson to deliver them.

the District Court entered an order modifying the District Court entered an order modifying the policy to permit only nonsectarian prayer. the policy to permit only nonsectarian prayer.

The District said that it was not a violation of The District said that it was not a violation of the First Amendment because the policy’s the First Amendment because the policy’s messages are private student speech, not messages are private student speech, not public speech.public speech.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES:CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe dealt Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe dealt

with the FIRST AMENDMENT: Freedom of Religion, with the FIRST AMENDMENT: Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, and Assembly (1971)Speech, Press, and Assembly (1971)

The First Amendment protects the civil liberties The First Amendment protects the civil liberties of individuals in the United States.of individuals in the United States.

The Constitution guarantees that government The Constitution guarantees that government may not force anybody to support or participate may not force anybody to support or participate in religion or its activities. in religion or its activities.

Question: Does the Santa Fe Independent School Question: Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, student-District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violate the initiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

COURT RULING:COURT RULING: The case was decided 6 to 3. Justice John Paul The case was decided 6 to 3. Justice John Paul

Stevens delivered the majority opinion of the Stevens delivered the majority opinion of the Court:Court:

The Court held that the District's policy The Court held that the District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause. football games violates the Establishment Clause. The Court concluded that the football game The Court concluded that the football game prayers were public speech authorized by a prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored government property at government-sponsored school-related events. Such speech is not school-related events. Such speech is not properly characterized as "private," wrote Justice properly characterized as "private," wrote Justice Stevens for the majority. Stevens for the majority.

OPINIONS:OPINIONS: DISSENTING OPINIONS: Chief Justice William DISSENTING OPINIONS: Chief Justice William

H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, agreed with the Scalia and Clarence Thomas, agreed with the District’s opinion, which was that it was not a District’s opinion, which was that it was not a violation of the First Amendment because it violation of the First Amendment because it was considered as a private speech.was considered as a private speech.

CONCURRING OPINIONS: Justice John Paul CONCURRING OPINIONS: Justice John Paul Stevens, followed by Justices Sandra Day Stevens, followed by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David H. O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer thought that this kind of speech was Breyer thought that this kind of speech was public and could be an offense for some public and could be an offense for some people. people.

RAMIFICATIONS:RAMIFICATIONS:

It violated the First Amendment that talks It violated the First Amendment that talks about the freedom of Religion.about the freedom of Religion.

What it did for the U.S. is that now people What it did for the U.S. is that now people will pay more attention of what they are will pay more attention of what they are going to say when they are in public areas, going to say when they are in public areas, such as a football stadium for example. such as a football stadium for example. Maybe, it helped some to realize that what Maybe, it helped some to realize that what they think and believe is not especially they think and believe is not especially what everybody else believes in.what everybody else believes in.

CASES RELATED TO IT:CASES RELATED TO IT: LeeLee v. v. Weisman,Weisman, 505 U.S. 577. There, in concluding that a prayer 505 U.S. 577. There, in concluding that a prayer

delivered by a rabbi at a graduation ceremony violated the delivered by a rabbi at a graduation ceremony violated the Establishment Clause, the Court held that, at a minimum, the Establishment Clause, the Court held that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its execices, or otherwise to support or participate in religion or its execices, or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or religious faith, or act in a way that establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.tends to do so.

Hazelwood School Dist.Hazelwood School Dist. v. v. Kuhlmeier,Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 270, the 484 U.S. 260, 270, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. The school principal, Reynolds written and edited by students. The school principal, Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate from publication. Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment? The Court held the students' rights under the First Amendment? The Court held that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively that the First Amendment did not require schools to affirmatively promote particular types of student speech. The Court held that promote particular types of student speech. The Court held that schools must be able to set high standards for student speech schools must be able to set high standards for student speech disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order.shared values of a civilized social order.

PERSONAL OPINION:PERSONAL OPINION:

I agree with the Court’s decision I agree with the Court’s decision because I think that to recite prayer because I think that to recite prayer in a public area is a violation to the in a public area is a violation to the First Amendment. I think that First Amendment. I think that everybody has the right to have his everybody has the right to have his own believes and nobody should own believes and nobody should force one to practice other religions force one to practice other religions than his own.than his own.