Today in Supreme Court History: August 31, 1995

8/31/1995: Students at Santa Fe Independent School District voted to allow a student to say a prayer at football games. In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000), the Supreme Court declared this prayer unconstitutional.

The Rehnquist Court

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Harris v. United States, 404 U.S. 1232 (decided August 31, 1971): Douglas, reversing both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, grants bail to defendant convicted of drug trafficking; notes reversal on merits possible because scanty evidence that defendant knew his truck contained narcotics, and not flight risk because he worked steadily as mechanic, had family in the area, and had never missed a court date

Bandy v. United States, 81 S.Ct. 25 (decided August 31, 1960): again Douglas grants bail, this time after Whittaker denied it, noting that prosecution does not oppose (must have been one of Whittaker's many "bad" days)

Winston-Salem/Forsyth Co. Board of Education v. Scott, 404 U.S. 1221 (decided August 31, 1971): Burger, noting that the stay of a desegregation order should have been presented earlier, sits on the application for five days and then says it's too late for it now because the school year started yesterday

[DaivdBehar]

In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000), the Supreme Court declared this prayer unconstitutional.

Vile detestable, nitpicking lawyers attacking our way of life.

[apedad]

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe

Facts of the case
Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe High School's student council chaplain delivered a prayer, described as overtly Christian, over the public address system before each home varsity football game. One Mormon and one Catholic family filed suit challenging this practice and others under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The District Court enjoined the public Santa Fe Independent School District (the District) from implementing its policy as it stood. While the suit was pending, the District adopted a new policy, which permitted, but did not require, student-initiated and student-led prayer at all the home games and which authorized two student elections, the first to determine whether "invocations" should be delivered at games, and the second to select the spokesperson to deliver them. After the students authorized such prayers and selected a spokesperson, the District Court entered an order modifying the policy to permit only nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer. The Court of Appeals held that, even as modified by the District Court, the football prayer policy was invalid. The District petitioned for a writ of certiorari, claiming its policy did not violate the Establishment Clause because the football game messages were private student speech, not public speech.

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

Conclusion
Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause. The Court concluded that the football game prayers were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events and that the District's policy involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at important school events. Such speech is not properly characterized as "private," wrote Justice Stevens for the majority. In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, noted the "disturbing" tone of the Court's opinion that "bristle[d] with hostility to all things religious in public life." (oyez)

Just reading Prof. Blackman's comment, I didn't think this was a good decision because it sounded like this was a simple, student led (and not the school), activity.

However, after reading the summary, the school was way more involved and so agree with the decision.

[DaivdBehar]

I am an atheist to the extreme. All this was just another random black hole singularity collapsing and bustin', probably among many and without meaning.

Nevertheless, these lawyers should be impeached for attacking our way of life. The prayer is in no way offensive to me. What offends the scumbag lawyers is that religion is 100 times more effective at persuading the regular person to be nice, go to work, take care of his family, not live the full Roman Orgy lifestyle. That latter lifestyle is that of the lawyer client, the non religious criminal.

[Doug Heffernan]

Being maximally atheist, what persuades you to be so nice?

[DaivdBehar]

Consequences. Utility calculations. One little known feature of utilitarianism is the requirement of personal experience. If you propose to kill the handicapped babies, you must kill your own first.

[SRG]

Have you encountered Robert Nozick's Utility Monster?

[DaivdBehar]

The utility monster is from the hood, and overly presentist. He is a dumbass.

[Krayt]

Government insinuates itself into life, then drags its religion-purifying fires along with it.

This is the principle of religion as quaint lifestyle choice, of no real meaning, and brushed away any time government steps into the room doing anything as complex as emptying trash cans.

I, too, am an atheist. If one wants a rant about kneeling to worship a thing that lets babies get raped to death, give me a call.

Remember the reason for protecting religion in the First Amendment is to stop one faction, or any, from gaining ascendency through control of government, a massive blight on history and the source of gigadeaths.

It's not to protect precious from seeing somebody else's religion in progress. It's the real world, and the sooner dear one sees the crazy ways the various duped bark at the moon, the better.

Having said that, government has no problems sending chapliains out with war to minister, most importantly, last rites to the dying.

[DaivdBehar]

Religious societies are more prosperous. Religion is more effective at moral authority than the lawyer. Atheists like us must respect and support it.

[John F. Carr]

I assume the Does had graduated by the time the Supreme Court decided whether their rights had been violated.

[DaivdBehar]

Pretextual nitpicking lawyer bullshit excuse to atrack a competing moral authority. Being offended is the problem of the plaintiff, not of the defendant.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and how does being offended violate the Constitution? How does prayer compel anything?

[Krychek_2]

That's not the question. The question is why should the rest of us acknowledge and pay respect to a deity we don't believe in? No one is saying the religious can't be religious; just do it on your own time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Define "your own time". Only in a house of worship? only in your own home?

[Krychek_2]

On time that doesn't belong to someone else -- an employer, other students, other citizens.

I have no issue with people quietly praying by themselves, or even in groups so long as it's not taking time away from something else. My issue is that if it happens in a classroom or on the football field, everybody else stops what they're doing until it's over. It's "pay attention to my religion" and it's no different from other forms of seeking to be the center of attention.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe 50 years later a more enlightened Court will correct this horrible decision.

[Frank Drackman]

Funny that every session of Congress opens with a prayer, and each house has it's own Chaplain, paid for with tax $$$$$ (of course if a body of peoples needed a Chaplain, it's our 2 houses of Sexual Congress)

[Krychek_2]

Frank, it seems the chaplains behave no better than the laity. I subscribe to a religious news service and at least a couple of times a week there's a story about some other celebrity pastor being embroiled in a sex scandal, a financial scandal, or both.

[Krychek_2]

In fact, here is a perusal from the last couple of weeks:

Matt Chandler (Pastor of a Dallas megachurch) steps aside after admitting inappropriate online relationship

Landon MacDonald to Lead Arizona Megachurch despite allegations of abuse when at Harvest Bible Chapel

Former Southern Baptist Convention Pastor Faces Child Sex Charges in Arkansas

Millions in Debt, Venue Church files for bankruptcy after pastor's alleged sexual misconduct

Disgraced Hillsong Founder Brian Houston preaches against 'cancel culture' at Seattle Megachurch

ARC-Lined Pastor drops defamation suit, faces demand for legal fees

Incoming Saddleback pastor has predatory patter of trying to acquire churches, Baptist group says

Pentecostal Pastor berates congregation for not buying him luxury watch (seriously)

Former UMC Pastor in Wisconsin convicted on child port charges

I'm telling you, religion is one big con. Stupid sheep who stay deserve all the fleecing they get.

[Mr. Bumble]

I you substitute politics and politicians in your example, do you feel the same way?

I'm telling you, religion [politics] is one big con. Stupid sheep who stay deserve all the fleecing they get.

[Krychek_2]

If your best argument is that at least the clergy aren't any worse than politicians, then perhaps you should re-examine the claim that religion is the source of moral guidance.

[Mr. Bumble]

I wasn't making an argument but asking a question. By your construction bad actions by a leader of a group invalidates the beliefs of the group. That's not the way it works.

[Krychek_2]

I did not say that the bad actions of a leader invalidate the beliefs of the group. A bad man can make valid arguments.

Rather, I was responding to Frank Drackman's argument that politicians could use some moral assistance from the clergy and my response is there's no real evidence the clergy are any more upright than the politicians Frank would have them uplift.

And, when the leaders of organizations act like it's a con game, maybe it is. That's not conclusive, but it's certainly evidence. See Matthew 24.

[Krychek_2]

Sorry, typo, I meant Matthew 23.

"The [religious leaders] love to sit in Moses' seat, and whatever they tell you to do, so it. But do not as they do, for what they say is not what they do."

[SMP0328]

In light of recent SCOTUS decisions involving the Establishment Clause, I have no doubt this decision will be reexamined. The Court might reaffirm Sante Fe, but not before giving it a good long look.

[Doug Heffernan]

God and country loves football. It's implicitly in the bible somewhere. DEI is not.

Unless you're a baptized jw, in which case children participating in sporting activities is a big time "thou shalt not" and droning on to god about it in some prayer would be offensive to god. I don't know if it would violate god's constitution though.

But surely saluting with a skinny chai latte is objectively offensive and violates all kinds of constitutions. Here we find agreement among disparate groups. That's some diversity in a communitarian sense, the best kind of diversity.

[bernard11]

Lol, you’re part of a movement that practically soaks in being offended!

RIght, and then likes tyo parade around in t-shirts that say "Fuck your feelings."

Assholes.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Queen, we didn't like Obama because he was born in Kenya, which explained why he didn't wear an Amurican flag pin, like his Idiot VP Senile Demented Joe does.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi Queenie. Great comment, bruh. No one is going to people who can mobilize the guard to impose their degenerate values on the country.

[apedad]

"God and country loves football."

Um, no.

The Chick-fil-A concession in the Mercedes-Benz Stadium (Atlanta), is NOT open during the Atlanta Falcon's Sunday home games.

Cause God hates football (and apparently yummy chicken), or some shit. . . I dunno. . . .

[DaivdBehar]

Great comment, bruh. Can you say it in Ebonics?

[Frank Drackman]

He does seem to have a thang for you.

[Frank Drackman]

Because most present day European nations are full of Moose-lums, converting the old churches into Mosques.