First Amendment Rights -- Defining the Essential Terms The - PDF document

Religion in Public School Classrooms, Hallways, Schoolyards and Websites: From 1967 to 2017 and Beyond Panelists: Randall G. Bennett, Deputy Executive Director & General Counsel Tennessee School Boards Association Charles C. Haynes, Vice President NEWSEUM INSTITUTE Religious Freedom Center Jay Worona Deputy Executive Director & General Counsel New York State School Boards Association First Amendment Rights -- Defining the Essential Terms  The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. (U.S. Const. Amend. I.)  The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law. . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (U.S. Const. Amend. I.) p. 1 1

Aid to Parochial Schools The Supreme Court has determined that it is constitutionally permissible to provide government benefits directly to the students and/or their parents, but that the Establishment Clause prohibits the direct grant of government benefits to the parochial school institution. (See footnote 1 p. 2-3) Aid to Parochial Schools In Mitchell v. Helms , the Supreme Court, in explicitly reversing decades of prior decisions, ruled constitutional the use of federal block grant monies under Chapter 2 of Title I of the ESEA to purchase and loan to computer hardware and software to sectarian schools. The Court reasoned that only governmental aid to religious schools that results in religious indoctrination can be reasonably attributed to governmental action. (p.3) 2

Vouchers In Zelman v. S immons-Harris, in a five to four emotionally charged decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled constitutional Cleveland’s school voucher program concluding that Cleveland’s voucher plan was a program of “true private choice” and as such was not a governmentally supported program of support for religion. (p.3-5) Income Tax Credits W inn v. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization , By a 5-4 vote, the United States Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law which granted income tax credits to taxpayers who made contributions to nonprofit organizations called “school tuition organizations” (STOs) that, in turn, awarded private school scholarships to children. The Court ruled that that there was no individual standing to bring a taxpayer action under Article III because there was no injury to the individual taxpayers that allowed a challenge to government taxing scheme since, there was no particular injury “by means of the “taxing and spending power” of the government through its treasury to a “sectarian entity.” A tax credit, in the view of the majority, is akin to the government declining to impose a tax. (p.5-6) 3

State Constitutional Church/State Provisions In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court in Locke v. Davey , upheld a Washington State law which specifically prohibits the use of state scholarship funds from being provided to individuals who wish to pursue a degree in theology. The Court chose not to answer the question of whether that state’s broader constitutional prohibition of funding any institution under the direct control of a religious denomination was constitutional. (p.5) The Supremes to Weigh In. On January 15 th , the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley, in which two lower federal courts upheld the State of Missouri’s exclusion of a church from a state program that provided grants to help non-profits buy rubber playground surfaces. The Church argued that the state’s actions discriminated against religious institutions in violation both the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses. In ruling for the State, the lower courts relied upon the Supreme Court’s previous decision in Locke v. Davey . The church has countered that Locke reflected a unique historical concern- state funding for the religious training of clergy-rather than “the identity of those who were using the money.” 4

Prayer In Public Schools The United States Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the principles of the separation of church and state embodied in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibit school-sponsored prayers and religious exercises, even when the prayer is nondenominational and participation is voluntary . Prayer During Public School Board Meetings In Town of Greece, NY. v. Galloway , although not a school case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that a town governmental body which began its meetings with a prayer should have ensured such prayers were nonsectarian and include references only to a “generic God” as well as not be identifiable with any one religion because “government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech.” (p.17) 5

Devotional Activities in Public Schools Engle v. Vitale (p.7) The U.S. Supreme Court rules unconstitutional a New York statute calling for non-denominational prayer in public schools prepared by the New York State Board of Regents. Devotional Activities in Public Schools Florey v. Sioux Falls (p.7), a federal appeals court ruled the Establishment Clause is not violated by a school's observance of holidays which have both a religious and a secular basis through programs containing music, art, literature and drama having religious themes and by the temporary display of religious symbols. . 6

Moments Of Silence In Wallace v. Jaffree , the United States Supreme Court held that an Alabama statute which authorized a one-minute period of silence in public schools for meditation or voluntary prayer was unconstitutional. (p.8) Benedictions, Invocations and Student Led Prayer The Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman held that benedictions and invocations by a member of the clergy at a public school graduation ceremony violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, despite the fact that students were not compelled to attend graduation ceremonies. (p.7) 7

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe In Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe , the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional, a public school prayer policy permitting student-led prayer at football games. The Court explicitly rejected the school district’s argument that the policy did not create governmentally supported religious speech because such speech was really private student speech which was not controlled by the district. (p.11) Question After Santa Fe v. Doe, may or must school districts control the content of student speech at graduation ceremonies so as to avoid speech which might be proselytizing in nature? 8

Use of School Facilities By Outside Religious Groups In more recent times, litigation has been commenced by outside religious groups who have claimed that certain school districts unconstitutionally precluded them from accessing district facilities for the purpose of holding religious services or religious instruction. Religious Use of School Facilities By Outside Groups In Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, the Supreme Court held that a school district could not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint by permitting school property to be used for the presentation of all views concerning family issues and child rearing except those dealing with the subject matter from a religious standpoint. (p.22) 9

Religious Use of School Facilities By Outside Groups In Good News Club v. Milford Central School , the S tates Supreme Court in a 6-3 United decision held that a school district violated the constitutional rights of a Christian youth organization when it refused to allow the group to conduct religious instruction and prayer in a public elementary schoolhouse after school hours. (p.22-23) Religious Use of School Facilities By Outside Groups Issue Presented after Good News Club: Must a school district which permits its premises to be utilized for certain non- school-related purposes, permit its facilities to be utilized by an outside religious group for purposes of conducting religious worship services? 10

Religious Use of School Facilities By Outside Groups In Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Educ. of the City of New York, the Second Circuit ruled that school districts are not required to permit outside church groups from utilizing school district premises on Sundays to hold religious worship services. The court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause provide protections but that it does not “require government to finance a subject’s exercise of religion” and, that in this case, there was no evidence that the regulation was motivated by hostility toward religion. A school board that “makes a reasonable, good faith judgment that it runs a substantial risk of incurring a violation of the Establishment Clause by hosting and subsidizing the conduct of religious worship services” does not act unconstitutionally in disallowing such use. (p.23-24).  Responding to Requests for Religious Accomdations  Since students are not precluded from privately engaging in religious expression, what are a school district’s obligations and/or entitlements in this area?  Are making accommodations required?  Are making accommodations permitted?  11