Jane Doe v. Madison School Dist. No. 321
| Decision Date | 30 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 90-518-E-EJL.,CV 90-518-E-EJL. |
| Citation | 7 F.Supp.2d 1110 |
| Parties | Jane DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 321; et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
James B. Lynch, Kirtlan G. Naylor, Lynch Moore Baskin & Parker, Boise, ID, Scott W. Marotz, Stephen McGrath, McGrath Baker & Marotz, Idaho Falls, ID, for defendant.
Stephen L. Pevar, American Civil Liberties Union, Denver, CO, D. Bernard Zaleha, Boise, ID, for plaintiffs.
The sole issue before the Court is whether the Madison School District's policy concerning graduation ("Graduation Policy" or "Madison District's Policy"), which allows the student invited to participate in the graduation program to give an uncensored presentation which may include an address, poem, reading, song, musical presentation, prayer or any other pronouncement of the student's choice, violates the Establishment Clause. The Graduation Policy at issue states:
The school administration may invite graduating students to participate in high school graduation exercises according to academic class standing. A minimum of four (4) students may be asked to address the graduates at the graduation exercises. Any student who, because of academic class standing, is requested to participate may choose to decline the invitation. The school administration shall not censor any presentation or require any content, but may advise the participants about appropriate language for the audience and occasion. Students selected to participate may choose to deliver an address, poem, reading, song, musical presentation, prayer or any other pronouncement of their choosing.
The printed program for the commencement exercises shall include the following paragraph:
(Docket No. 108, Appendix A.)
The Court would like to note at the outset that this case was a very difficult and troubling case for the Court. The law regarding the constitutionality of graduation prayer or a school district's policy concerning graduation ceremonies is far from being clear and requires a fact intensive analysis. Although the Supreme Court has rendered an opinion on the subject, the circuit and district courts have not consistently interpreted or applied its holding, and the Supreme Court has not granted certiorari to clarify its holding. Furthermore, the only Ninth Circuit opinion specifically to address graduation prayer was vacated as moot by the Supreme Court. To further complicate the issue, the policies regarding student presentations at a graduation ceremony vary widely. Finally, this case involves the facial challenge to an atypical school district graduation policy that does not involve or mention a formal state-sponsored Invocation or Benediction exercise. Rather, the policy is neutral regarding religion. The Court notes that the decision is confined to its facts and recognizes the result could be different if the facts are slightly altered.
For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds the Graduation Policy on its face does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court's decision is based on two basic premises. First, there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion and private speech endorsing religion. Board of Educ. of Westside Community Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250, 110 S.Ct. 2356 2372, 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990); Ceniceros v. Bd. of Trustees of San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 106 F.3d 878 (9th Cir.1997). Second, the Supreme Court did not ban all prayer at high school graduation ceremonies by its decision of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992). Applying these principles, the Court finds the facts presented in this matter are distinguishable from the facts in Lee and the policy satisfies the three-prong test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). Religion is neither proscribed or prescribed by the State under this Graduation Policy.
On November 16, 1990, Plaintiffs filed a complaint (Docket No. 1) asking the Court to declare the Madison District's Policy concerning graduation unconstitutional and enjoining the school district from allowing any form of prayer at graduation. Additionally, Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prohibit the coaches from directing a prayer prior to athletic events.1 Plaintiffs seek no monetary damages.
On April 25, 1991, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to stay the case pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992). (Docket No. 29.) On August 12, 1991, the action was administratively terminated without prejudice. (Docket No. 30.) After being reopened, the case was once again administratively terminated pending final disposition of Harris v. Joint Sch. Dist., 41 F.3d 447 (9th Cir.1994), vacated as moot, 515 U.S. 1154, 115 S.Ct. 2604, 132 L.Ed.2d 849 (1995). (Docket Nos. 44, 72.) On April 9, 1996, the case was reopened, and the Court determined Plaintiffs had standing to continue the lawsuit. (Docket Nos. 99, 104.)
On July 22, 1996, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Graduation Policy was facially unconstitutional. On August 19, 1996, Defendants filed a response, and on August 30, 1996, Plaintiffs filed a reply. On March 3, 1997, the Court held oral arguments on the motion for summary judgment.
Motions for summary judgment are governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56 provides, in pertinent part, that judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
The Supreme Court has made it clear that under Rule 56 summary judgment is mandated if the non-moving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element which is essential to the non-moving party's case and upon which the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial. See, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the non-moving party fails to make such a showing on any essential element, "there can be no `genuine issue of material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548.2
Moreover, under Rule 56, it is clear that an issue, in order to preclude entry of summary judgment, must be both "material" and "genuine." An issue is "material" if it affects the outcome of the litigation. An issue, before it may be considered "genuine," must be established by "sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute ... to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." Hahn v. Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 464 (1st Cir.1975) (quoting First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co. Inc., 391 U.S. 253, 289, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 1495, 47 L.Ed.2d 754 (1976). The Ninth Circuit cases are in accord. See, e.g., British Motor Car Distrib. v. San Francisco Automotive Indus. Welfare Fund, 882 F.2d 371 (9th Cir.1989).
According to the Ninth Circuit, in order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, a party
(1) must make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact with respect to any element for which it bears the burden of proof; (2) must show that there is an issue that may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party; and (3) must come forward with more persuasive evidence than would otherwise be necessary when the factual context makes the non-moving party's claim implausible.
Id. at 374 (citation omitted).
Of course, when applying the above standard, the Court must view all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 541 (9th Cir.1992).
The Court may enter summary judgment in favor of the non-moving party on its own initiative. In Portsmouth Square v. Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir.1985), the Court held:
Under certain limited circumstances a district court may issue summary judgment on its own motion. For example, sua sponte summary judgment is appropriate where one party moves for summary judgment and, after the hearing, it appears from all the evidence presented that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the non-moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett, 685 F.2d 309, 311 (9th Cir.1982).
The crux of Plaintiffs' argument is that all prayer at a high school graduation ceremony is unconstitutional, because the school inherently retains control over the graduation ceremony by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adler v. Duval County School Bd.
...four speakers spoke, but indicates that each of the four speakers spoke under the same circumstances. See Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 7 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1112 (D.Idaho 1997), aff'd, 147 F.3d 832 (9th Cir.1998). The Duval County school system's policy thus exerts more control over the s......
-
Doe v. Madison School Dist. No. 321
...at their high school's graduation ceremonies violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. See Doe v. Madison School Dist. No. 321, 7 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1113 (D.Idaho 1997). The complaint alleged that the children had standing to challenge the school's policy because they were stud......