Student Case Summary
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
School Prayer
By Deborah Morris Burton, J.D.
General Topic: School Prayer
Type of Case: Trial/Appeal
Participants: Appellee Attorney, Appellant Attorney, Justices
(The appellee is the party who won in the lower court, while the appellant is the
party who lost in the lower court and seeks to have a higher court reverse the
lower court’s judgment.) In this case, Lee is the appellant and Weisman is the
appellee.
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
The issue on appeal is whether including clergy who offer prayers as part of an
official school graduation ceremony is consistent with the Religion Clauses of
the First Amendment (which the Fourteenth Amendment makes applicable to
the states and their school districts).
For an appellate case, the attorneys argue from previous case law and facts
specific to the case at hand.
1. Case Summary
In 1989, Deborah Weisman graduated from a public middle school in
Providence, Rhode Island. It was the policy of the Providence School
Committee and the Superintendent of Schools to permit principals to invite
members of the clergy to give invocations (opening prayers) and benedictions
(closing prayers) at middle school and high school graduations. Many, but not
all, of the principals chose to include prayers as part of the graduation
ceremonies.
Deborah’s father, Daniel, objected to any prayers at Deborah’s middle school
graduation. However, the school principal, Robert Lee, invited Rabbi Leslie
Gutterman, to deliver prayers at the graduation, which was held at the school.
Clergy invited to participate in the graduation ceremonies were given a
pamphlet, “Guidelines for Civic Occasions,” prepared by the National
Conference of Christians and Jews. These guidelines recommend that public
prayers at nonsectarian civic ceremonies be composed with “inclusiveness and
sensitivity,” and note that “[p]rayer of any kind may be inappropriate on some
civic occasions.” Principal Lee gave Rabbi Gutterman this pamphlet and
advised him the invocation and benediction should be nonsectarian (not
associated with a particular religious denomination).
The following was Rabbi Gutterman’s invocation:
“God of the Free, Hope of the Brave: For the legacy of America where
diversity is celebrated and the rights of minorities are protected, we thank You.
May these young men and women grow up to enrich it. For the liberty of
America, we thank You. May these new graduates grow up to guard it. For the
political process of America in which all its citizens may participate, for its
court system where all may seek justice we thank You. May those we honor
this morning always turn to it in trust. For the destiny of America we thank
You. May the graduates of Nathan Bishop Middle School so live that they
might help to share it. May our aspirations for our country and for these young
people, who are our hope for the future, be richly fulfilled. Amen.”
The following was his benediction:
“O God, we are grateful to You for having endowed us with the capacity for
learning which we have celebrated on this joyous commencement. Happy
families give thanks for seeing their children achieve an important milestone.
Send Your blessings upon the teachers and administrators who helped prepare
them. The graduates now need strength and guidance for the future, help them
to understand that we are not complete with academic knowledge alone. We
must each strive to fulfill what You require of us all: To do justly, to love
mercy, to walk humbly. We give thanks to You, Lord, for keeping us alive,
sustaining us and allowing us to reach this special, happy occasion. Amen.”
Both parties agreed that the school district does not require attendance at
graduation exercises as a condition for receipt of a diploma.
The section the prayer, “To do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly,” comes
from the Bible (Micah 6:8).
2. Lower Court Decisions
The first court to hear this matter was the District Court. Deborah’s father,
Daniel, sought a temporary restraining order to prohibit school officials from
including the prayers in the ceremony. The District Court denied the
restraining order. Deborah and her family attended the ceremony, and the
prayers were recited. Afterwards, Daniel sought a permanent injunction to bar
Providence public school officials from inviting clergy to deliver prayers at
future graduations. That court decided that the practice of including
invocations and benedictions in public school graduations violated the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; therefore, the school district
must discontinue its practice of invocations and benedictions offered by clergy
at school graduations.
The court used the three-part Lemon Establishment Clause test, which requires
any governmental practice to:
1. reflect a clearly secular purpose,
2. have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
3. avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.
The District Court believed that the school’s actions violated the second part of
that test, because the school created “an identification of the state with a
religion, or with religion in general” and “endorse[d] religion in general.”
The school principal, Mr. Lee, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit, which agreed with the District Court ruling. Mr. Lee
petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear this case, and they granted
certiorari (meaning, they would decide the case). Mr. Lee is the appellant, and
Mr. Weisman, the appellee, at the Supreme Court appeal.
3. Elements of the Law/Case Law
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The language from the First Amendment that applies to cases involving
religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by Congress.
However, beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied
the First Amendment to each state, through the Due Process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, state laws must also withstand
constitutional scrutiny from the perspective of the federal and state
Constitutions.
Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
This was the first Supreme Court case involving a challenge to state law under
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This case invoked
Jefferson’s “wall of separation between church and State.” In this case, the
Supreme Court ruled that:
1. Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church.
2. Government can not pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or
prefer one religion over another.
3. Government can not force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away
from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any
religion.
4. No one may be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or
disbeliefs, or for church attendance or non-attendance.
5. No tax in any amount can support any religious activities or institutions,
whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or
practice religion.
6. Government can not, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any
religious organizations or groups, or vice versa.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
In this case, a group of parents sued a New York public school district for
requiring students to begin each day by reciting a nondenominational prayer
written by the New York State Board of Regents. This was the prayer:
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy
blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.” While both the
state court and the New York Court of Appeals allowed the prayer to be
recited, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring students to recite the prayer
was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause.
This was the first time the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of
prayer in public school. Although the prayer was “denominationally neutral”
and “its observance on the part of the students [was] voluntary,” the Court
found that it used the power or prestige of the government to control, support
or influence the religious beliefs and practices of the students. The Court said
the Establishment Clause was violated whether or not there is any “showing of
direct governmental compulsion…whether those laws operate directly to
coerce non-observing individuals or not.” Therefore, neither the voluntary
nature of school prayers nor their nondenominational character protected them
from violating the Establishment Clause.
School District of Abington v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
These are companion cases, which refers to a group of two or more cases
which are consolidated by an appellate court and decided together because they
have common legal issues. In some instances, companion cases with similar
but not identical fact patterns are decided with different outcomes, allowing the
court to establish distinctions.
Both of these cases involved the reading of Bible passages prior to class in
public schools. Schempp involved a Pennsylvania law that stated that at least ten
verses from the Bible must be read, without comment, at the opening of each
school day. However, any child could be excused from the Bible reading with
written request of the parent/guardian. A federal district court disallowed this
practice.
Murray involved a requirement by the Baltimore school board that the Lord’s
Prayer be recited at the beginning of the school day. This practice was upheld
by both a state court and the Maryland Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court ruled against allowing the reciting or reading of the Bible
verses and the Lord’s Prayer. The decision was 8-1 and the Court concluded:
“[T]he Establishment Clause has been directly considered by this Court eight
times in the past score of years and, with only one Justice dissenting on the
point, it has consistently held that the clause withdrew all legislative power
respecting religious belief or the expression thereof. The test may be stated as
follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If
either is the advancement or inhibition of religion, then the enactment exceeds
the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution.” Because
the schools’ opening exercises were government-sponsored religious activities,
the Court found that the primary effect was the advancement of religion, and
therefore, violated the Establishment Clause. To withstand a challenge to the
Establishment Clause, there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary
effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. For this reason, comparative
study or religion in public schools is allowed, because it has a secular purpose
and neither advances nor inhibits religion.
To violate the Free Exercise Clause, it is only necessary to show a coercive
effect of the law. The fact that either may be just “minor encroachments on
the First Amendment” is irrelevant.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968)
In this case, a teacher challenged the constitutionality of an Arkansas statute
prohibiting the teaching of evolution. The Supreme Court ruled that the law
violated both the Establishment and the Free Exercise Clauses because the
state may not tailor the education of students to the principles of any religious
group. The law was not neutral because it did not prevent all discussions of the
origin of man. The law prohibited the teaching of evolution because it is
deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine (a particular
interpretation of the Book of Genesis) by a particular religious group.
In this consideration of whether religious activity in public schools violated the
Establishment Clause, the Court reiterated the principle that government “may
not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or
even against the militant opposite…. If [the purpose or primary effect] is the
advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of
legislative power.” Finding that the Arkansas law aided religion by preventing
the teaching of evolution, the Court disallowed it.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, Earley v. DiCenso, Robinson v. DiCenso, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
This case refers to three cases from Pennsylvania and Rhode Island that
involved public assistance to private schools (some religious). They included
paying the salaries of teachers in religious schools, assisting the purchasing of
textbooks and other teaching supplies, and paying 15% of the salaries of private
school teachers. A federal court upheld the Pennsylvania statute, while a
district court ruled the Rhode Island law unconstitutional. (The Supreme
Court often grants certiorari because of conflicting lower court law, as in this
case.)
The Supreme Court established “the Lemon test” based upon previous
decisions, which means that laws:
1. must have a secular purpose,
2. the principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and
3. must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the laws violated the third criteria,
and therefore, violated the Establishment Clause and were unconstitutional.
The teachers, whose salaries were being partially paid by the State and who
received assistance with purchasing textbooks and teaching supplies, were
religious agents working under the control of religious officials, creating an
inherent conflict that would require the state to become entangled with the
church. Because the statutes did not meet the Lemon test, they were
invalidated as unconstitutional.
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)
Chambers was a member of the Nebraska state legislature who objected to the
fact that a clergyman who opened each session with a prayer was paid with
public funds. Two lower courts found this practice unconstitutional, although
one objected to the use of public money to pay the clergy, while the other
objected to the prayer being offered.
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court permitted the practice of opening the
legislative session with a prayer given by a chaplain paid with state funds. The
Court relied upon the use of prayer in our nation’s history and tradition and the
intent of the framers of the Constitution, as well as the fact that the Nebraska
legislature’s practice is consistent with the framers of the Constitution’s use of
chaplains. The Supreme Court and Congress have traditionally begun their
sessions with prayers, as well. Individual states do not have to abide by more
stringent First Amendment limits than the federal government. Because of the
principles upon which the nation was founded, religion has become part of the
fabric of society. The offering of prayer is a tolerable acknowledgement of
beliefs widely held among the people of our country. Paying for a chaplain
from public funds was done by the Continental Congress at the founding of
our country.
There has not been any adverse effect shown from involving prayer with
governmental activity. This practice had become more a communication of
shared values than a religious practice. The Establishment Clause does not
always bar a state from regulating conduct, simply because it is compatible with
religious concerns. However, some argue this decision was very narrow, with
no relevance to school prayer cases.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
An Alabama law required that each school day in all public schools begin with a
moment of silent meditation or voluntary prayer. A student’s parent sued,
claiming that the law violated the Establishment Clause by compelling students
to pray, and exposed students to religious indoctrination. The Supreme Court
struck down the law as unconstitutional in a 6-3 vote.
The Court decided the important issue was whether the law was instituted for a
religious purpose. According to the state legislator who wrote the bill, the “or
voluntary prayer” clause was included for a religious purpose. Alabama already
had another law that allowed school days to begin with a moment of silent
meditation. This new law expanded the law by giving it a religious purpose.
The intentions of the legislature demonstrated its unconstitutionality.
The three justices who disagreed with the decision believed this was not
endorsed prayer because it was voluntary, and differentiating the two laws
because this one includes the word “prayer” shows a hostility towards religion
instead of neutrality.
Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822 F. 2d 1406 (1987)
This is a case decided by the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which
decided that invocations and benedictions at public school graduations may be
constitutional “if they preserve the principle of equal liberty of conscience” and
do not go beyond “the American civil religion” or proselytize. Relying on the
Marsh case, it held that invocations and benedictions at public school
graduations are not always unconstitutional.
The Plainwell Community Schools and the Portage Public Schools are public
school districts near Kalamazoo, Michigan. At both graduation ceremonies,
which are both held at outdoor athletic facilities in the evening, invocations and
benedictions are included. Attendance at the graduations is voluntary and one
need not attend to receive a diploma.
At the Plainwell graduation, the invocation and benediction are delivered by
two student volunteers chosen from a group of honor students. The students
determine the prayers’ content. At the Portage graduation, the content of the
ceremony is organized and developed by the graduating seniors. They have
chosen, for at least fifteen years, to include in the ceremony an invocation and
benediction given by local clergy of various Christian denominations chosen by
the senior class representatives.
This Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit determined that the graduation
ceremonies here were more analogous to legislative and judicial sessions than
classroom sessions. There is less opportunity for religious indoctrination, peer
pressure or coercion, which is one of the differences the Supreme Court found
in Marsh and the school prayer cases. Also, the prayers at graduations are
generally of a more ceremonial nature than classroom prayers and take place in
a different environment.
However, in this case, the Court of Appeals found that the language of the
prayers in this case are unacceptable because they “symbolically place the
government’s seal of approval on one religious view,” the Christian view.
Some expressly invoke the name of Jesus as the Savior, and are not the type of
prayers used in public legislative and judicial sessions described in Marsh. For
that specific reason, the prayers were found to be unconstitutional when
applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Marsh case, while leaving open
the possibility of constitutional prayers at graduation ceremonies.