Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe Case Summary

This case involved a 17 year old student that was elgiable for the IDEA services at the school. The student explosively responded to the taunts of a peer by choking the student and then kicking out a school window as he was escorted to the principal’s office. Doe was suspended for 5 days. On the fifth day of Doe’s suspension, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Student Placement Committee notified his mother that it was recommending his expulsion and that his suspension would continue indefinitely until the expulsion proceedings were complete. (Steketee, n.d.) The mother disagreed with this ruling and pressed further. The courts later granted the student a preliminary injunction, the trial court entered a permanent injunction

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

In the First Amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is known as the Establishment Clause, and it has been a controversial topic of many Supreme Court cases throughout America’s history. There are three different methods of constitutional interpretation--textualism, intentionalism, and pragmatism—that have shaped the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is usually interpreted in two different ways: “The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions—federal, state, or local—that promote religion,” and that “The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion.” There is a common metaphor that accompanies the Establishment Clause know as the “wall of separation.” The Establishment Clause has this “wall” in order to keep the church and state separate. This is a reoccurring theme I have seen develop throughout various court cases. I studied four different cases that made it to the Supreme Court: Everson vs. Board of Education, Lynch vs. Donnelly, Lee vs. Weisman, and Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe. During the brief period of me studying these four cases involving the Establishment Clause, I have inferred that pragmatism has indicated the utmost dominance in shaping the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause.

Case Citation: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, individually and next as friend for her minor children et al , 530 U.S. 290 (2000)

Even when the Constitution establishes a separation between church and state, traces of religion can still be found in public and government environments, such as the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words ‘under God’, American currency having ‘In God we trust’ and other such events and places. Consequently, this prevalence of Christian ideology violates all Americans’ first amendment right to freedom of and from religion and has a negative impact all citizens as it conflicts with their individual beliefs, religious or not.

The first part of the lemon test refers to having a secular purpose. This is asking whether or not there is a religious or spiritual basis in the activity or teaching. If the answer is no, then there is not a violation of the law. If it is proven that there is a secular purpose, then it would be in violation of the establishment clause. The second part of the lemon test says that is must neither advance nor inhibit religion. So essentially, religion conversation or discussion should be left out of an activity. This is either in support of, or demonstrative actions towards religion. The third part of the lemon tests says that it must not create excessive government entanglement with religion. If any of these three parts or violated, then the act is in violation of the law (http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc_Public/FreedomOfExpression/FreedomOfReligion&EstCl.asp.)

The ability for religious people to exercise their religion in opinion and practice has been a sacred right held up since the beginning of the United States. What happens when one’s religious practices conflicts with public values? This question was integral to the Supreme Court and its rulings in the cases of Bob Jones University v. United States and Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah. In Bob Jones, the university’s tax exempt status was revoked because the university’s religious beliefs were contrary to the public values of racial equality. In Lukumi Babalu, the religious beliefs of the Santeria Church in Florida about animal sacrifices were in conflict with the public values of the community. Bob Jones University lost their religious

The U.S government provides the basic services for all its citizens, which means fair treatment to all religious followers. The government helps the public and private religious institutions, however there is a limit for the government to be involved with these religious institutions. The government decided to create the Lemon Test, which ensures that the government cannot break the Establishment Clause. In the Lemon Test there are three basic prongs. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

he question of religious involvement in public education has been a controversial topic since before America was a country. Thomas Paine, one of our founding fathers, expressed, “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of the government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith,” (“20 Quotes”). While the separation of church and state was a necessity made clear by Thomas Jefferson in the first amendment of the Constitution, the question differentiating freedom of religion and freedom from religion remains intangible. The public university of Arkansas State confronted this debate in September of 2014 after the death of two of its esteemed football team associates.

The court utilized the three-pronged Lemon Test to analyze the situations and see if they were in violation of the aforementioned clause. After reading the two cases I do not feel that there are factual differences that would justify different results. While the districts were using the churches for different reasons, the cases still addressed the same issues and problems. Both cases addressed the fact that ceremonies being held in a religious venue would expose people to religious symbols and pictures that may differ from their own. The exposure to these religious experiences may make them uncomfortable and go against their own beliefs. I do not feel that the factual differences would make any me feel any differently in the setting. In neither of the cases do I feel that the districts are endorsing a particular religion. When thinking of religion the government is to remain neutral, so some may argue that by holding the ceremonies at religious sites that they are not maintaining this

The three prongs of the Lemon Test are first, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose (the Purpose Prong); second, the statute’s primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion (the Effect Prong); and third, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion (the Entanglement Prong). These prongs formed a comprehensive standard that potentially could be applied to all establishment clause disputes. (Con Law Textbook, pg.

The article titled, “THE SUPREME COURT: THE RELIGION ISSUE; Student Prayers Must Be Private, Court Reaffirms”, was written by Linda Greenhouse. She was a journalist for the New York Times for 40 years. She was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of the US Supreme Court. Mrs. Greenhouse has expressed her own personal views and is a critic of conservative religious values, but has never received any complaints of bias, in the time that she wrote for the New York Times. She is known to be trustworthy and fair.

Because Church and State laws seem to create such a gray area, there are tests that have been developed to help determine if church and state laws have been violated. When dealing with cases falling under the Establishment Clause, the first test that could be applied is called the Lemon Test and it consists of three prongs. These prongs are: “The government must have a secular (non-religious) purpose, the government action must

Looking strictly at the Lemon Test, it might seem reasonable to side with the Court’s critics in saying that their two rulings were contradictory. The key difference though is the analysis posited by Justice O’Connor in which she creates her landmark Endorsement Test. To be clear, the Endorsement Test is not a separate test in and of itself, but rather a clarification on the first and second prongs of the Lemon Test. She states that “what is crucial is that a government practice not have the effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion” (O’Connor 266). Through this lens, the effect prong of the Lemon test becomes more clear because other cases which seemed to violate the effect prong such as Walz v Tax Commission and Gowan v Maryland were held as constitutional because they did not give the appearance of state endorsement. Applying the Endorsement Test to the two nativity scene cases makes it becomes clear that the rulings are not contradictory. In Lynch, O’Connor points to the fact that the

Throughout history, it has been questioned frequently to what extent is there religious freedom in this country and what constitutes a violation in the First Amendment. In a recent court case, it has been questioned whether a middle school promotion and high school graduation should be allowed to be held in a church. The school could not hold the promotion and graduation ceremonies because the auditorium was found to be holding high levels of unhealthy chemicals from paint and this was also found at the middle and high school’s gyms and cafeterias.The school decided that the best option would be to hold the promotion and graduation at an alternate indoor location, a Church. The Church is the most appealing location to the school because it is a large enough location to seat all of the people who want to attend, plenty of parking and there will also be no interference of weather implications. However, the holding of the ceremonies in the church has brought forth the question whether it is constitutional or not. As proven through the Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Engel v. Vitale (1962), Lee v. Weisman (1992), Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (2000) and the Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004) court cases, it has proven that the holding of the ceremonies in Church will be held constitutional.