Case Study: School Dist V. Doe

In the case of Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, several students in January of 1990 sued the school board alleging that Westside's refusal to allow the students to start a Christian club violated the Equal Access Act. Some students wanted to form this club and be given the same privileges and meeting terms as other after-school schools in this district. The administration initially denied the request, and the school board upheld the administration's decision. The Court of Appeals found in favor of the students in June of 1990.

A student at Westside High School requested to form a Christian Club that would meet after school. The club would be granted the same privileges as the other student groups at the school, but they did not have a faculty sponsor. Her request was denied by the principal stating that the club would violate the Establishment Clause and the School Board policy requiring a faculty member to sponsor the club. Mergens took her concerns to the School Board. The School Board upheld the principal’s decision. Mergens filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education of Westside Community Schools, for denying the request for a Christian

The case of Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

The Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe stated that student-led/ student-initiated prayer at high school football games violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. The Baptist religion was promoted in the Santa Fe Independent School District in Texas, which is located between Galveston and Houston. A teacher handed out flyers for a “revival meeting” which involved reading the bible and other Catholic things. They offered prayer up to God at graduations, assemblies, and football games. One mormon student and mother filed suit against the school district. Also, one catholic student and mother filed suit against the school district. Their lawsuit involved that the Establishment Clause was violated many times. They did not

I stand before you, in this court, to try and sway the majority decision regarding Safford United School District v. Redding (June 5, 2009). With agreeance of Justice Clarence Thomas, the act of searching Ms. Redding for drugs that violated the school’s policy, was not a direct violation of her fourth amendment right. It is no secret that maintaining order in any school environment can be a challenging task. It is more evident in today’s society school officials must take an even more proactive stance, when it does come down to maintaining order. With the recent surge of violent crimes and drug abuse that plague our schools, officials should have the right to try to prevent these actions from perpetuating into an epidemic.

S. Court granted review of the case. Milford Central School’s arguments are that Good News Club is in violation of the Establishment Clause because the organizations purpose is religion and the students, especially the elementary students, would not be able to distinguish the religion instruction from the school instruction. In addition, the school has a “limited public forum” and cannot accept every application or open its doors every time an organization wants it to ("Find Law", 2015). The school related their argument to previous cases, such as, Engel v. Vitale Lee v. Weisman Sante Fe (school prayer), Peck v. Upsher County Board (no bibles in elementary schools), and Widmar v. Vincent (younger students are impressionable). Good News Club’s argument is that the school allows non-related organizations to “use the facilities based on expressive activities.” The club has a neutral viewpoint and is specific on the subject matter of promoting moral values. The club does not violate the Establishment Clause because they are neutral, viewpoint is private and not a reflection of the school, and the club is not endorsed by the school. Additionally, the club is promoting the community to put themselves above others and that is discriminated against its religious speech. The previous cases that the club uses to support their argument are Lambs Chapel v. Moriches School District (religious viewpoint but not religious purpose), Rosenberger b. Rector and

The First Amendment being fought over, in 2004, Elk Grove Unified School District vs. Newdew, a father challenged constitutionality of requiring public school teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, which included the phrase " Under God", since 1954. The court determined that mr. Newdew, as a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to bring the case to

First Amendment protections are the most essential rights ensured to Americans; however, they are not absolute. The United States (U.S.) Supreme Court has never taken the stance that these protections are assured in all conditions. School speech is one such area, since the decision of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Court has been willing to constrain the fairly extensive Tinker holding requiring a school to demonstrate that a student’s speech is a material and substantial disruption in order to curtail student’s First Amendment rights. The Court, in each instance since the Tinker case, has restricted Tinker as opposed to applying it as drafted. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, the Court created an exception

The defendant Abington School District is being challenged in the Supreme Court saying that reading verses of the Holy Bible each day before class is unconstitutional under the 1st and 14th Amendments. Plaintiff Edward Schempp filed the complaint against Abington School District. Abington Township is located in Pennsylvania, and at the time Pennsylvania was one of four states with a statute to make schools perform Bible readings before the start of classes everyday. That law/statute being (24 Pa. Stat. 15-1516, as amended, Pub. Law 1928) was being brought up.

Mrs Chief Justice and may it please the court. The issue that was brought up in this case was whether the Equal Access Act violated the Establishment which permitted government from creating any law that favors a religion over any other. The school officials believe that by granting Mergen’s religious group full access to form a club would create a whole new problem that it would be very difficult to ensure every religious group gets what they demanded. The officials had made this decision also because they are required to, citing from the establishment clause, establish an environment without the endorsement of any religious belief. While It make sense that the board of education of westside community school wanted to take a neutral position at religion because they are funded and regulated by the state and federal government, they did not know that by doing so they violated the Equal Access

Abernathy’s speech in the Martin high school graduation was a violation of the constitution. The lawsuit was so strongly supported that three other families with children that attended Martin High school joined the Roes in suing the school system. The three families that are supporting the lawsuit consist of a Jewish family, non-atheist family, and a family that prefers to not describe their religion. The lower court’s rulings are as follows, the United States District Court ruled in favor of WCPS. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the District Court and found the actions of WCPS to be unconstitutional. The essential question the court is being asked to answer is whether Petitioner Western County Public Schools’ policy permitting student prayer and sectarian speech at a public high school graduation ceremony violated the Establishment

The Supreme Court has just received Santa Fe v the people, in this case the students was banned from saying a prayer at a foot ball game . The constitution protects the right to free speech. Therefore, there is no reason for this case to have come up in the first place. If someone does not want to hear a prayer, they do not have to listen to it. If I were the judge I would rule that banning prayer at school events is unconstitutional.

A High School and Junior Varsity football coach was recently banned from praying with his students because football is a state program in the public school, and there has to be a separation of church and state so that no one feels segregated or forced to partake in things they do not believe in.. But don’t get me wrong, religion is allowed in school, teachers and coaches are just, not allowed to push their religious agenda or teach it to students which is exactly what coach Joe Kennedy did. I am not against God or religion, but I am against the entanglement of religion and school. And leading kids in prayer after a game can not only make kids that aren’t christian feel segregated and left out, but

The debate for and against religion in public schools has weaved itself in and out of both court systems and the communities the many cases brought forward involved. While it was established early on that the state and those who represent the state could not display advancement of any particular religion, the focus on distinguishing that there are no favored religions became especially difficult. As many actions to equalize the ability to practice religions were taken, some saw those same actions as infringing of their own. The dichotomy was thus created which involved debating the best possible outcome between letting prayer into schools vs strictly keeping it out. The case for equal access started out as a push for students in secondary