Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Argued March 29, 2000 Decided June 19, 2000 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| Student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause. | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Stevens Joined by: O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Dissent by: Rehnquist Joined by: Scalia, Thomas |
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision. School prayer is a controversial topic in American jurisprudence.
[edit] History
The Santa Fe Independent School District (SFISD), a school district in Texas between Houston and Galveston) allowed students to read Christian prayers at graduation ceremonies and over the public address system at home football games. These prayers were read by an elected student chaplain.
Two sets of current or former students and their respective mothers—one Mormon, the other Catholic—objected to this practice and filed a suit on the basis of a violation of the Establishment Clause. Judge Samuel B. Kent of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas allowed the plaintiffs to remain anonymous to protect them from harassment. They are referred to as the Does.
During the litigation, the school changed its policy. They would hold two elections under students, the first deciding if "invocations" should be held during football games. The second to elect the student to deliver them. The students elected in favor of prayer, therefore were given this right.
The district court allowed this policy, though it required that they should be nonsectarian and non-proselytizing. The judge's main authority was Jones v. Clear Creek ISD (Clear Creek ISD being another Houston-area school district), which allows certain school prayers. The district court's final judgment was in December 1996.
Both the SFISD and the Does appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The SFISD appealed because it claimed the words 'nonsectarian and non-proselytizing' should not be necessary. The Does wanted the football prayers found unconstitutional altogether.
In a 2-1 decision, Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., and Carl E. Stewart, ruling for the court, decided that "the words 'nonsectarian, nonproselytizing' are constitutionally necessary components" of a policy governing prayer. Moreover it also decided that these student-led prayers were only acceptable at graduation, not during football games. The majority opinion was written by Wiener.
E. Grady Jolly dissented, objecting that now "the majority expressly exerts control over the content of its citizens' prayers."
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the following question: "Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."
The Court ultimately held the policy allowing the student led prayer at the football games was unconstitutional.
