530 U.S. 290, 314–16 (2000)
The Santa Fe Independent School District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas responsible for the education of more than 4,000 students.1 It includes Santa Fe High School along with two primary schools, an intermediate school, and the junior high school.2
Prior to 1995, the student who occupied the school's elective office of student council chaplain delivered a prayer over the public address system before each varsity football game for the entire season.3 In April 1995, respondents, two sets of current or former students and their respective mothers from one Mormon family and one Catholic family, commenced this action alleging that the District had engaged in several proselytizing practices, such as allowing students to deliver overtly Christian prayers over the public address system at home football games.4 They moved for a temporary restraining order to prevent violations at the imminent graduation exercises.5 The District Court permitted respondents to litigate anonymously to protect them from intimidation or harassment.6
While these proceedings were pending in the District Court, the District adopted a series of policies over several months dealing with prayer at school functions.7 On May 10, 1995, the District Court entered an interim order providing that non-denominational prayer consisting of an invocation and/or benediction could be presented by a senior student or students selected by members of the graduating class, with the text of the prayer determined by the students without scrutiny or preapproval by school officials.8 In response to the District Court order, the District enacted a policy in May for graduation ceremonies that authorized two student elections. In July, the District enacted another policy eliminating the nonsectarian requirement but providing that the May policy would become effective if enjoined.9
The parties stipulated that after the May policy was adopted the senior class voted by secret ballot to include prayer at graduation and elected two seniors to deliver the invocation and benediction.10 The August policy for football games, titled Prayer at Football Games, was similar and authorized two student elections to determine whether invocations should be delivered and to select the spokesperson.11 On August 31, 1995, the high school students voted to allow a student to say a prayer at varsity football games and a week later selected a student to deliver the prayer.12
The final October policy is essentially the same as the August policy though it omits the word prayer from its title and refers to messages and statements as well as invocations.13 It permits students to deliver a brief invocation and/or message during the pre-game ceremonies of home varsity football games to solemnize the event, to promote good sportsmanship and student safety, and to establish the appropriate environment for the competition, with the student volunteer selected by classmates deciding the content consistent with the policy goals, and includes a fallback provision that automatically adds a nonsectarian and nonproselytizing limitation if the preferred policy is enjoined.14
The District Court entered an order precluding enforcement of the first open-ended policy.15 It held that delivering a prayer over the school's public address system prior to each football game coerces student participation in religious events.16 Both parties appealed.17 The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's holding that the alternative policy could be extended to football games.18 The Supreme Court granted the District's petition for certiorari, limited to the question whether the petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.19
Whether the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause?20
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits government from coercing anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise acting in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.21
Yes.
The Santa Fe Independent School District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas responsible for the education of more than 4,000 students in Santa Fe High School and other schools.22 Prior to 1995, the student who occupied the school's elective office of student council chaplain delivered a prayer over the public address system before each varsity football game for the entire season. In April 1995, respondents, two sets of current or former students and their respective mothers from one Mormon family and one Catholic family, commenced this action alleging that the District had engaged in several proselytizing practices, such as allowing students to deliver overtly Christian prayers over the public address system at home football games, and moved for a temporary restraining order.23
While these proceedings were pending in the District Court, the District adopted a series of policies over several months dealing with prayer at school functions. The final October policy permits students to deliver a brief invocation and/or message during the pre-game ceremonies of home varsity football games to solemnize the event, to promote good sportsmanship and student safety, and to establish the appropriate environment for the competition, with the student volunteer selected by classmates deciding the content consistent with the policy goals.24 The District Court entered an order precluding enforcement of the first open-ended policy and held that delivering a prayer over the school's public address system prior to each football game coerces student participation in religious events. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's holding that the alternative policy could be extended to football games.
The policy authorizes a majoritarian student election process that selects one student speaker for the entire season to deliver a message at school-sponsored football games broadcast over the school's public address system.25 The policy text requires the message to solemnize the event and be consistent with promoting good sportsmanship and student safety.26 The history of the policy, evolving from the student council chaplain tradition through multiple revisions during litigation, demonstrates that the District intended to preserve the practice of prayer before football games.27 These elements establish that the policy has the purpose and creates the perception of encouraging the delivery of prayer at important school events, violating the Establishment Clause under the principles from Lee v. Weisman.28
The District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.29
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Scalia And Thomas, Jj.
Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing that the policy is facially neutral because it does not require prayer or prescribe the content of the message.30 It simply allows a student speaker to deliver a message of his or her own choosing.31 He contended that the pregame message is private student speech, not government speech, because the speaker is selected by classmates and the school does not dictate or review the content in advance.32 Rehnquist further argued that reliance on Lee v. Weisman is misplaced because in Lee the school selected the clergy member, whereas here the speaker is chosen by students at a football game rather than a graduation ceremony.33
He concluded that the majority's decision would suppress student speech and that the Establishment Clause does not require silencing students who wish to express religious views.34
Whether the pregame messages under the policy constitute private student speech rather than government speech?35
Speech is not private when it occurs at a school-sponsored event, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer. Selective access through a majoritarian process does not transform government property into a public forum or insulate the speech from government control.36
No.37
The delivery of the message occurs at a school-sponsored event, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body, under the supervision of school faculty, and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer.38 The election system does not insulate the speech from government control because the school district determines who is eligible to vote and who may speak.39 The policy requires the message to solemnize the event and to be consistent with the goals of promoting good sportsmanship and student safety.40 The majoritarian election system ensures that only messages approved by the majority will be delivered, subjecting minority views to the will of the majority.41 These factors establish that the pregame messages are not properly characterized as private speech.42
The pregame messages under the policy do not constitute private student speech but instead constitute government speech.43
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Scalia And Thomas, Jj.
Chief Justice Rehnquist maintained that the speaker is a student selected by his or her classmates.44 The message is the student's own because the school does not dictate the content, review the message in advance, or endorse the message.45 He argued that the Court's reliance on the majoritarian election process as converting private speech into government speech is misplaced.46
The First Amendment does not prohibit majorities from expressing their views.47 The fact that a majority of students may choose a speaker who delivers a religious message does not convert that message into government speech.48
Whether the policy coerces students to participate in religious observances?49
A policy coerces participation in religious observances when it subjects students to social pressure to participate in an act of religious worship at a school-sponsored event that is an integral part of the school's extracurricular program. This holds even if attendance is not strictly required for a diploma, because adolescents are susceptible to peer pressure toward conformity in matters of social convention.50
Yes.
Although attendance at high school football games is not required to receive a diploma, the games are an integral part of the school's extracurricular program.51 Many students attend to support their classmates, to participate in the band or cheerleading, or for other school-related reasons, and some commitments mandate attendance for class credit.52 The invocation is delivered over the public address system by a student speaker who represents the student body to a captive audience in the stands.53 Students who attend the games are exposed to the pregame message whether they want to hear it or not.54 The policy was adopted in response to a lawsuit and was clearly intended to preserve the practice of prayer before games.55 These factors establish that the policy coerces those present to participate in an act of religious worship.56
The policy coerces students to participate in religious observances.57
Whether the majoritarian student election process subjects minority student views to improper majority control?58
A majoritarian election process that determines whether religious messages will be delivered at school events and selects the speaker impermissibly invades the private sphere of religious belief. It subjects minority views to majority vote, undermining the essential protection of minority viewpoints and encouraging divisiveness along religious lines in a public school setting.59
Yes.
The two student elections authorized by the policy, coupled with the debates that must precede each, impermissibly invade the private sphere of religious belief and worship.60 The election mechanism determines whether religious messages will be delivered at home football games and encourages divisiveness along religious lines in a public school setting.61 The majoritarian process guarantees that minority candidates will never prevail and that their views will be effectively silenced.62 The District's decision to hold the election is a choice attributable to the State, and the system empowers the student body majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages.63 This alone constitutes a constitutional violation regardless of the students' ultimate use of the power.64
The majoritarian student election process subjects minority student views to improper majority control.65