Case study/Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe

Introduction

In the case of Santa Fe Impendent School District v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruling held on 19^th June 2000 that the policy by the school board allowing a prayer session initiated and led by student before the beginning of the food ball games violated the establishment clause in First Amendment. As per this clause, it is illegal for the government to establish, advance or favor any religion in the country.

Case facts

The case involved Santa Fe Independent High School as the petitioner and Doe as the respondents, and the name was meant to protect the respondent’s identity.  Before 1995, the student who held the elective student council chaplaincy office prayed using the school’s public address system before the starting of every food ball game at the varsity level for the whole season. The issue that was finally brought the US Supreme Court regarded a policy that was to allow students to carry out a vote on whether they supported deliverance of prayers before the starting of the game and even choose one student who would do so.  The student voted for the inclusion of prayers. Respondents were former or current students and their mothers, with one family being Catholic while the other was Mormon (John & Ronald 425).  The respondents moved to the District Court so as to restrain the violation of Establishment Clause. Does allegations included that the District engaged in practices that promoted Baptist Church while chastising students from minor religious beliefs and even distributed Bibles to schools.  The respondents also argued against the adoption of other similar policies, such as allowing prayer at school graduation for senior class which was voted by senior students through secret ballot.  They also alleged that the polices did not include any requirement that these prayers should be non-proselytizing and nonsectarian ((John & Ronald 425).   The policies involved the messages, invocations or statements that propagated religious favoritism.

However, the District Court entered an order preventing adoption of the policies even the open ended ones.  The court ruled that actions taken by the school should not coerce a person into supporting or taking part in any religious organization, relying on Lee v. Weisman decision of 1992. The court conclusion included ruling that the prayers offered at the school appealed some Christian beliefs and using the public address system to deliver the prayer before the games coerced students to take part in religious exercises (John & Ronald 425). However, the patties appealed the ruling, with the District arguing that the include part of the policy was allowable while Does contended that there was a violation of the Establishment Clause.  The majority of the Court of Appeal supported Does contentions.  The decision  by the   Court if Appeal was in line with precedent set by Fifth Circuit  in the case of Johns v. Clear Creek Independent School District of 1992(John 1789).  This case was also brought before the Supreme Court, where board argued that students were left to control the message and choose the speaker. Due to this, respondent argued that the content of the aforesaid message was “private speech” which as safeguarded by First Amendment.  The Supreme Court dismissed the argument, noting that most students have to attend such games and that even if it was mandatory to attend the game, the resulting social pressure would make them go (John 1790).   It was held that the policy was in violation of First Amendment Establishment clause.

Works cited

John E, Nowak, and Ronald D. Rotunda. Constitutional Law. 423-429 (St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West) (2004).

John R. Vile, Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues, 1789-2015 (Santa Barbara, California)(2017).