Harris v. Joint School Dist. No. 241

• Decision Date: 20 May 1993
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 91-0166-N-HLR.
• Citation: 821 F. Supp. 638
• Parties: Phyllis Wright HARRIS, on her own behalf and on behalf of her three children, Beverly Harris Butler, and Samuel Harris, Plaintiffs, v. JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 241, Board of Trustees of District No. 241; Trent Woods, Chairperson of said Board; Al Arnzen, Superintendent; Defendants, v. CITIZENS PRESERVING AMERICA'S HERITAGE, INC., an Idaho corporation; Antoine Jesse Heath; Karla Frei; Maureen Slichter (by and through Leon Slichter, parent); Chad Graves; Gina Engle; Sherry Coxen (by and through Jack Breen, guardian); Maria Lowry, by and through Robert Lowry, parent); Mike McCarley; and Tina Lawrence, Intervenors-Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

821 F. Supp. 638

Phyllis Wright HARRIS, on her own behalf and on behalf of her three children, Beverly Harris Butler, and Samuel Harris, Plaintiffs, v. JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 241, Board of Trustees of District No. 241; Trent Woods, Chairperson of said Board; Al Arnzen, Superintendent; Defendants, v. CITIZENS PRESERVING AMERICA'S HERITAGE, INC., an Idaho corporation; Antoine Jesse Heath; Karla Frei; Maureen Slichter (by and through Leon Slichter, parent); Chad Graves; Gina Engle; Sherry Coxen (by and through Jack Breen, guardian); Maria Lowry, by and through Robert Lowry, parent); Mike McCarley; and Tina Lawrence, Intervenors-Defendants.

Civ. No. 91-0166-N-HLR.

United States District Court, D. Idaho.

May 20, 1993.

Alan Kofoed, Nevin, Kofoed & Herzfeld, Boise, ID, Stephen L. Pevar, American Civil Liberties Union, Denver, CO, for plaintiffs.

James B. Lynch, Kirtlan G. Naylor, Imhoff & Lynch, Boise, ID, for defendants.

Stanley D. Crow, Boise, ID, for intervenors-defendants.

ORDER ADDRESSING MOTIONS AND GRANTING INTERVENOR-DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

RYAN, Senior District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 28, 1991, this court entered an Order Granting Motion to Abstain and Denying Preliminary Injunction. In that order, although plaintiffs' and intervenors' motions for summary judgment had been fully briefed and argued, this court deferred ruling on such motions based on an appeal pending before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Lee v. Weisman, 908 F.2d 1090 (1st Cir.1990), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1305, 113 L.Ed.2d 240 (1991). See Order Grant.Mot. to Abstain & Den.Prelim.Inj., filed May 28, 1991, at 15. Subsequently, this case was administratively terminated. See Order of Administrative Termination, filed Oct. 9, 1991.

On June 24, 1992, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992), and thereafter plaintiffs filed a motion to reopen these proceedings and conduct further discovery.

Upon reviewing the Lee decision, together with the briefing submitted by the parties, the court found good cause for reopening this case, for allowing further discovery, and for permitting the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding plaintiffs' and intervenors' previous cross-motions for summary judgment. See Order Grant.Mot., Reopening Case, Set. Deadlines, filed Jan. 29, 1993.

Now, having carefully reviewed the supplemental briefing submitted by the parties, along with numerous affidavits, deposition excerpts and exhibits, the court is prepared to enter its rulings.¹

Based on the analysis to follow, the court shall deny plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, which ultimately seeks to enjoin prayer from taking place at future graduations in Joint School District No. 241 because such prayer allegedly violates the Idaho Constitution² as well as the United States Constitution. And, the court shall grant Intervenors' Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Complaint and on Intervenors' Counterclaim to the extent that Joint School District No. 241 shall be able to continue the practice of allowing each senior class to dictate the content and form of graduation ceremonies, including the determination as to whether some sort of "prayer," or, conversely, no prayer at all, will be part of such ceremonies.

II. ANALYSIS³

A. The Holding in Lee v. Weisman

In Lee, the Supreme Court held that Robert E. Lee, a public school principal acting in accord with the policy of his Providence, Rhode Island, school district, violated the Establishment Clause by inviting a local clergy member, Rabbi Leslie Gutterman, to deliver a nonsectarian, nonproselytizing invocation at his school's graduation ceremony.

Several passages from the Lee decision are particularly instructive in the case at bar. Accordingly, rather than paraphrasing the Supreme Court, this court finds it beneficial to quote directly from the Lee opinion.

In reaching its decision the Court specifically explained that:

The principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supersede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause. It is beyond dispute that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which "establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so...." The State's involvement in the school prayers challenged today violates these central principles.

That involvement is as troubling as it is undenied. A school official, the principal, decided that an invocation and a benediction should be given; this is a choice attributable to the State, and from a constitutional perspective it is as if a state statute decreed that the prayers must occur.

....

And, the State's role did not end with the decision to include a prayer and with the choice of clergyman. Principal Lee provided Rabbi Gutterman with a copy of the "Guidelines for Civic Occasions," and advised him that his prayers should be nonsectarian. Through these means the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayer.

Id., 505 U.S. at ___-___, 112 S.Ct. at 2656, 120 L.Ed.2d at 480-81 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Throughout its decision the Court placed great emphasis on the particular facts before it and stated that:

These dominant facts mark and control the confines of our decision: State officials direct the performance of a formal religious exercise at promotional and graduation ceremonies for secondary schools.

....

The policy of the city of Providence is an unconstitutional one.... The government involvement with religious activity in this case is pervasive, to the point of creating a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school.

Id. 505 U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2655, at 480 (emphasis added).

Moreover, as the Court took into account the particular facts in Lee, declaring that "our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains a delicate and fact-sensitive one," id. 505 U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2661, 120 L.Ed.2d at 487 (emphasis added), the Court acknowledged that:

At a high school graduation, teachers and principals must and do retain a high degree of control over the precise contents of the program, the speeches, the timing, the movements, the dress, and the decorum of the students. ... In this atmosphere the state-imposed character of an invocation and benediction by clergy selected by the school combine to make the prayer a state-sanctioned religious exercise in which the student was left with no alternative but to submit.

Id. 505 U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2660, 120 L.Ed.2d at 487 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

This court previously deferred ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment hoping that the Supreme Court would provide a definitive ruling in Lee which would dispose of the issues raised in these motions. Unfortunately, however, as the excerpts set forth above make clear, the Court's decision was deeply rooted in the particular facts present in the Rhode Island school district.

Thus, although Lee provides some guidance and certainly endorses the separation of church and state, it does little to resolve the dispute between the parties in the case at bar. On the contrary, as the supplemental briefing of the parties demonstrates, each side maintains that the holding in Lee strengthens their respective positions. With these points in mind, the court will now turn to the supplemental arguments of the parties.

B. The Parties' Arguments in the Wake of Lee v. Weisman

Plaintiffs challenge the fact that over the years high school graduation programs in School District 241 have included invocations and benedictions, and they request this court to enjoin that practice from continuing. In their supplemental briefing plaintiffs rely primarily on Lee, and the Ninth Circuit decision of Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 644 F.2d 759, 762 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 863, 102 S.Ct. 322, 70 L.Ed.2d 163 (1981), which held that faculty supervision of religious activities, including voluntary prayer at public school assemblies, creates excessive entanglement of government and religion.

Plaintiffs attach much significance to the fact that graduation activities in District 241 are supervised by faculty and administrators and that the ceremony is "presided over by the principal and school board members who sit upon a raised stage above the graduates and announce them as graduates between prayers." Pls.' Supplemental Mem.Supp.Inj. & Summ.J., filed Apr. 9, 1993, at 8. Essentially, plaintiffs urge this court to find that such supervision constitutes state involvement equal to, if not greater than, that present in Lee, and, therefore, that the Establishment Clause is being violated whenever prayer is incorporated into commencement exercises.⁴

Plaintiffs also argue that even though the record reflects that senior students vote on whether or not to include any prayer in their graduation programs, that such a vote is not meaningful because there is a long standing tradition of having invocations and benedictions as part of graduation ceremonies in District 241. And, plaintiffs maintain that even a vote of the students violates the Establishment Clause because no minority of students should ever have to be subjected to even the possibility of having prayer included in their public high school graduation ceremonies. Moreover, plaintiffs seem to argue that because students are aware of faculty and administrators who favor prayer as part of commencement exercises, they feel pressure to vote for the inclusion of prayer even if they do not personally want it.

On the other hand, defendants/intervenors⁵ contend that the holding in Lee supports their position that School District No. 241 is not engaging in any practice which violates the Constitution. Defendan...