S.D. v. St. Johns County School Dist.
| Decision Date | 15 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:09-cv-250-J-20TEM. |
| Citation | 632 F.Supp.2d 1085 |
| Parties | S.D., individually and as Next Friend of A.J.D., and M.P., individually and as Next Friend of O.J.P., Plaintiffs, v. ST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, George Leidigh, individually and in his official capacity as Principal of The Webster School; Dawn Caronna, individually and in her official capacity; and Debbie Moore, individually and in her official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
D. Gray Thomas, Matthew R. Kachergus, William J. Sheppard, Sheppard, White, Thomas & Kachergus, PA, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiffs.
Frank D. Upchurch, III, Richard Q. Lewis, III, Upchurch, Bailey & Upchurch, PA, St. Augustine, FL, John David Marsey, Robert Jacob Sniffen, Sniffen Law Firm, PA, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants.
Before this Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2, filed March 17, 2009), Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5, filed March 20, 2009), and Plaintiffs' Reply (Doc. 14, filed March 26, 2009). This action arises out of an elementary school's class practice and scheduled performance of a song entitled "In God We Still Trust.'"1 The song was set to be performed at an end-of-the-year assembly on or around April 30, 2009. As of the issuance of this Order, the school has voluntarily taken the song out of the program and indicated that it will no longer be practiced by the students. However, this conduct by Defendants does not fully address all of the issues raised by Plaintiffs' motion. Since time is not of the essence, this Court has thoroughly and sufficiently reflected upon the weighty principles raised by this motion. This Court has considered the limited evidence before it and determines the following:2
I. BACKGROUND
In or about February of 2009, minors A.J.D. and O.J.P., in conjunction with their public school third-grade class at The Webster School, were provided the lyrics to various songs that they were to perform at an end-of-the-year assembly ("the Assembly"). The Assembly is scheduled to take place on or around April 30, 2009. The students were told that they would regularly practice the songs in class until the date of its performance at the Assembly. Of the three songs selected by the third-grade teachers, one of the songs, entitled "In God We still Trust" ("the Song"), carries the following lyrics:
You place your hand on His Bible
When you swear to tell the truth
His name is on our greatest monuments
And all our money too
And when we pledge allegiance
There is no doubt where we stand
There's no separation
We are one nation under Him
In God we still trust
Here in America
He's the one we turn to
When the going gets rough
He is the source of our strength
The one who watches over us
Here in America
In God we still trust
Now there are those among us
Who want to push Him out
And erase His name from everything
This country's all about
From the schoolhouse to the courthouse
They're silencing
His word Now it's time for all believers
To make our voices heard In God we still trust
Here in America He's the one we turn to
When the going gets rough
He is the source of all our strength
The one who watches over us
Here in America
In God we still trust.
The Song was played during class at least three times and was practiced by the whole class at least once. Additionally, the students were told that if they objected to the Song, for whatever reason, they did not have to sing the Song at the Assembly; however, they were also told that if they did not participate in the practice and performance of the Song, they would be excluded from the Assembly in its entirety.
Following the introduction and subsequent practicing of the Song in their children's third-grade class, the parents of A.J.D. and O.J.P. ("Plaintiffs") filed suit. Their Complaint, filed on March 17, 2009, was accompanied by the instant motion. Plaintiffs argue that the conduct by the teachers, Dawn Caronna and Debbie Moore, the Principal, and the St. Johns County School District (collectively "Defendants") imposed sectarian religious beliefs onto elementary public school students and violated their right to free exercise under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. On the day that Plaintiffs filed the Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the Defendants formally removed the song from the Assembly roster. Additionally, the Song has not been rehearsed or played in the classroom since March 12, 2009.
II. ANALYSIS
Before addressing the elements required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, it is important for this Court to set forth a brief history of the First Amendment, which states in pertinent part, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."3 U.S. Const, amend. I. The First Amendment, as incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, applies to state and municipal governments, state-created entities, and state and municipal employees. Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir.2004). It is well-established that public school officials are state actors and, as such, their conduct bespeaks government conduct. Id.; see also Brentwood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n., 531 U.S. 288, 304, 121 S.Ct. 924, 148 L.Ed.2d 807 (2001).
Religion has been closely identified with the development of our history and government. School Dist. of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963). Id. at 212-13, 83 S.Ct. 1560. However, "[t]hat is not to say that religion has been so identified with our history and government that religious freedom is not likewise as strongly imbedded in our public and private life." Id. at 214, 83 S.Ct. 1560. It is, in fact, the religious persecution suffered by our forefathers that makes the freedom to religious opinion a cornerstone of our national identity.4 It is axiomatic to this identity that "the government [remain] neutral, and while protecting all [religions], it prefers none and disparages none." Id. at 215, 83 S.Ct. 1560. To that end, the First Amendment, through the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that states be neutral in their relations with religious believers and nonbelievers. Moreover, as an anti-majoritarian document, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to,
withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to freedom of worship and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. . . . While the Free Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state action to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone, it has never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs.
To a large extent, the Establishment and Free Exercises Clauses compliment one another. They are both contained within the First Amendment and protect the freedom of religious, or non-religious, beliefs and actions. Yet, there exists a tension between the doctrines, when applied: government action to facilitate free exercise might be challenged as impermissible establishment, and government efforts to refrain from establishing religion might be objected to as denying the free-exercise of religion.5
Through a series of cases, the Supreme Court has established a framework for analyzing claims under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The primary test was articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman and has come to be known as the Lemon test. 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). Under the Lemon test, the Establishment Clause is violated if the government's primary purpose is not secular-based, if the principal effect is to aid or inhibit religion, or if there is any "excessive [government] entanglement" with religion. Id. at 613, 91 S.Ct. 2105. In County of Allegheny v. ACLU, the Court clarified,
[t]he requirement of neutrality inherent in the Lemon foundation does not require a relentless extirpation of all contact between government and religion .... [However] [i]t may not coerce anyone to support or participate in any religion or its exercise.... [T]he government may not place its weight behind obvious efforts to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion.
492 U.S. 573, 576, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 70, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985) () (O'Connor, J. concurring). Government neutrality, in the form of the `endorsement test,' has become widely accepted in evaluating claims under the Establishment Clause,6 "[i]f government is to be neutral in matters of religion, rather than showing either favoritism or disapproval towards citizens based on their personal religious choices, government cannot endorse religious practices and beliefs of some citizens without sending a clear message to the nonadherents that they are outsiders." Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 627, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in opinion) (emphasis added)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Humanist Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Ocala
...and municipal employees. Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir.2004) ; S.D. v. St. Johns County School District, 632 F.Supp.2d 1085, 1090 (M.D.Fla.2009). The Establishment Clause applies not only to statutes, but also to acts and decisions of individual governm......