Doe ex rel. Doe v. Beaumont Independent School Dist.
| Citation | 173 F.3d 274 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-40429,97-40429 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Parties | 134 Ed. Law Rep. 52 Jane DOE, By their next friends Susan DOE, Mary Doe & Lisa Doe; June Doe, By their next friends Susan Doe, Mary Doe & Lisa Doe; Janet Doe, By their next friends Susan Doe, Mary Doe & Lisa Doe; Jill Doe, By their next friends Susan Doe, Mary Doe & Lisa Doe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee. |
Scott David Newar, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Melody Gayle Thomas, Tanner Truett Hunt, Jr., J. Mitchell Smith, Wells, Peyton, Greenberg & Hunt, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Mark S. Finkelstein, John D. Faucher, Shannon, Martin, Finkelstein & Sayre, Houston, TX, for Anti-Defamation League, Amicus Curiae.
Steven Keith Green, Washington, DC, for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Jane Doe, June Doe, Janet Doe and Jill Doe (collectively "the Does" or "the Doe children"), by their next friends, Susan Doe, Mary Doe and Lisa Doe (collectively "the Doe Parents") 1 appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Beaumont Independent School District ("BISD"). The Does argue that the court erred in concluding that (1) they lack standing to challenge BISD's "Clergy in Schools" volunteer counseling program ("the Program"), and (2) the Program does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. We conclude that the Does have standing to bring this action and that summary judgment in favor of BISD was improvidently granted by the district court. Furthermore, on the basis of the undisputed material facts presented in connection with BISD's summary judgment motion, 2 we conclude that judgment should be entered against BISD,
holding the Program to be unconstitutional. We therefore reverse the rulings of the district court, holding for the Does on both standing and constitutionality, and remand this case to the district court for (a) entry of judgment consistent with this opinion, (b) determination of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to award to the Does, as prevailing parties, and (3) issuance of any orders that may be necessary or desirable to prohibit BISD from conducting the Program, which today we hold unconstitutional.
Dr. Carrol Thomas, Jr., superintendent of BISD, initiated the "Clergy in the Schools" program soon after he was hired in March 1996. Under the Program, BISD invites individual members of the local clergy to provide volunteer counseling to students at the schools during school hours. The Program is an adjunct to--but entirely separate and distinct from--BISD's broader School Volunteer Program, which comprises a number of different groups 3 dedicated to furthering quality education by providing community resources and expertise. Although individual members of the clergy can participate in BISD's general volunteer program, the "Clergy in the Schools" program, as its name would indicate, is open only to clergymen. BISD rationalizes this restriction by advancing that it is designed to take advantage of the clergy's special listening and communication skills. 4
The Program's stated goals are to provide (1) meaningful dialogue between the clergy and students regarding civic virtues and morality; (2) a safe school atmosphere; and (3) volunteer opportunities for an additional group of stakeholders in the public schools. BISD actively recruits selected area clergymen, inviting their participation through letters sent at taxpayer expense on official letterhead. The vast majority of the clergymen recruited by BISD are Protestant Christians. BISD asserts that it is committed to assembling a group that is both racially and religiously diverse and that the local predominance of Protestant Christians accounts for their disproportionate presence in the Program.
BISD administrators actively train the clergy volunteers. As part of this training, BISD provides the clergymen with written guidelines, which, inter alia, instruct the clergy not to (1) discuss religion, (2) quote religious materials, (3) provide information about church services, (4) identify their church affiliation, or (5) wear distinctive garb that would reveal their religious affiliation. In addition, BISD officials inform the clergy that they are not to offer to pray with students, and that any student who asked for prayer should be encouraged to share that need with a parent or with his individual clergyman outside school. Finally, the BISD administrators admonish the clergymen that discussions are to center on civic values; the volunteers are to refuse to discuss prohibited subjects, such as sex and abortion, but are encouraged to discuss, inter alia, divorce. 5
At one training session, a leaflet entitled "Reasons for a School-Church Alliance" was distributed to the clergy. The document cites the benefits to children of regularly The Program calls for each elementary school to be visited by members of the clergy once a year and for each secondary school to be visited twice a year. Before each visit, the participating clergymen meet at a local church to discuss issues important to the Program and to receive additional training and orientation by BISD administrators. At one such meeting, BISD's attorney advised the volunteers regarding the constitutionality of the Program. These meetings, which are not attended by students, conclude with a prayer.
attending church and religious schools and concludes that "a strong RELIGIOUS base enhances education for socioeconomically disadvantaged children!" 6 BISD insists that this document was provided by a third party at an initial organizational meeting that was held off school property, and that Dr. Thomas has now informed the clergy by letter that the leaflet is not part of the program.
When the members of the clergy arrive on campus, they are escorted into the schools by BISD principals and counselors. The principal and counselor of each school select the student participants, with an eye toward assembling a group diverse in ethnicity, academic ability, and school deportment. BISD officials then remove the selected students from class and assemble them in another schoolroom to participate in the group counseling, without parental notification or consent. 7 According to BISD, students who are selected have the option of declining to participate. Each counseling session is attended by the school's principal and counselor. Under the Program's guidelines, the sessions are designed to comprise approximately thirty-five students and ten to twelve volunteer clergymen; the guidelines proscribe one-on-one meetings. According to the Does, however, on one occasion, a single clergymen counseled five students. 8
At the counseling sessions, members of the clergy introduce themselves without referring to their titles, and students present topics of concern to themselves. School administrators attend and monitor every counseling session. BISD has on at least one occasion sought participation by the clergy in off-campus volunteer efforts. At a training meeting, Superintendent Thomas told the clergy that their help was needed in ensuring student success on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills achievement test, and suggested that the clergymen offer tutorial sessions in church and include writing in Sunday school classes. BISD did not make such suggestions to the lay volunteers in the broader volunteer program.
The Doe Parents, on behalf of their minor children, filed suit against BISD. Shortly thereafter, they filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") to enjoin BISD from implementing the Program in the children's schools. After conducting a hearing, the court denied this motion, which denial the Does appealed. The Does next filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Denial of TRO, which likewise was denied. With the court's permission, the Does then withdrew their notice of appeal. Several months later, without entertaining oral argument, the district court granted BISD's motion for summary judgment. The court did not mention whether the The Does timely appealed. Americans United for Separation of Church and State ("Americans United") and the Anti-Defamation League ("ADL") submitted amicus curiae briefs on behalf of the Does.
Program violated the Texas Constitution--a claim that the Does continue to raise on appeal.
"We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the district court, and in reviewing the facts, we draw all inferences most favorable to the party opposing the motion." 9 Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue as to any material fact has been shown, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 10
The district court held that the Does lack standing to bring this action under Article III of the Constitution. Purporting to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, the district court found that the Does had failed to identify a personal injury suffered or threatened as a result of BISD's program. Instead, concluded the court, they presented only a generalized public grievance. The court cited the Supreme Court's opinion in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. 11 for the proposition that federal courts are not the proper forums for public grievances. 12
"To establish standing under Article III of the United States Constitution, a litigant must demonstrate: that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant ... that the injury fairly can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd.
... ... Clear Creek Independent School District, 977 F.2d 963, 972 (5th Cir.1992) (permitting ... Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 547, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 89 L.Ed.2d 501 (1986) ("This ... Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 173 F.3d 274, 300 (5th Cir.1999) (Garza, J., ... ...
-
Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Rubin
... ... Supreme Court recently reiterated in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 2266, ... within its respective sphere." People of Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Ed., 333 U.S. 203, 212, 68 S.Ct ... In Doe v. Beaumont Independent School District, 173 F.3d 274, 287-88 (5th ... ...
-
H.S. v. Huntington County Community School Corp., 1:08 CV 271.
... ... See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 551, 106 S.Ct ... 616 F.Supp.2d 870 ... 1326, 89 ... Cf. Doe v. Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 173 F.3d 274, 282-85 (5th Cir.1999) (parents and ... 306, 72 S.Ct. 679; Pierce ex rel ... 616 F.Supp.2d 877 ... Pierce v. Sullivan W. Cent. Sch. Dist., ... ...
-
Nichols v. City of Rehoboth Beach
... ... of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party 836 F.3d 280 not before the ... by compliance with the statute adds cost to the school expenses or varies by more than an incomputable scintilla ... Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist. , 173 F.3d 274, 282 (5th Cir. 1999). B ... ...
-
Establishing official Islam? The law and strategy of counter-radicalization.
...a formal religious exercise (3) in such a way as to oblige the participation of objectors.'" (quoting Doe v. Beaumont Indep. Sch. Dist., 173 F.3d 274, 285 (5th Cir. 1999))); see also ROGER J.R. LEWSQUE, NOT BY FAITH ALONE 5 (2002) ("In Lee v. Weisman ... and Santa Fe Independent School Dist......