Sands v. Morongo Unified School Dist.
Decision Date | 06 May 1991 |
Docket Number | No. S012721,S012721 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 809 P.2d 809, 59 USLW 2703, 67 Ed. Law Rep. 730 James SANDS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MORONGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Biddle & Hamilton, Christian M. Keiner, Sacramento, and Terri A. DeMitchell, for defendants and appellants.
Robert K. Skolrood, Douglas W. Davis, William C. Wood, Jr., Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard and Jayne G. Benz, as amici curiae on behalf of defendants and appellants.
Carol A. Sobel, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Sacramento, Mark D. Rosenbaum and Paul L. Hoffman, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and respondents.
Douglas E. Mirell and Daron L. Tooch, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiffs and respondents.
In this case we hold that religious invocations and benedictions at public high school graduation ceremonies are constitutionally impermissible. Our review of applicable precedent convinces us that this practice violates the guarantees found in the United States and California Constitutions that religion and government shall remain separate.
Ours is a nation composed of people of many different races and faiths. Some are Native Americans, many of whom adhere to beliefs formed here over many centuries; others are immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants, many of whom came here to escape religious persecution. The historical fact of our diverse origins and beliefs is a vital part of our national heritage and central to the meaning of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The establishment clause reflects and implements the fundamental wisdom that freedom of religion flourishes only when government observes strict adherence to the principle of separation of religion and state authority. Government-sponsored religious invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies contravene the fundamental principle of governmental neutrality and abstention in matters affecting religious beliefs and practices.
Defendant Morongo Unified School District (the District) operates four high schools: Yucca Valley High School, Twenty-Nine Palms High School, Sky High School, and Monument High School. Opening invocations and closing benedictions have been included in graduation ceremonies at Yucca Valley High School since 1968, at Twenty-Nine Palms High School since 1937, at Sky High School since 1977, and at Monument High School since 1978.
At Yucca Valley High School, the president of the graduating class, in consultation with the vice-principal, selects speakers to conduct the invocation and benediction. In 1985, a Protestant minister delivered the invocation, and a faculty member gave the benediction. In 1986, a teacher delivered the benediction, and a Protestant minister selected by the vice-principal gave the invocation.
At Twenty-Nine Palms High School, a student committee initially selects the speakers for the invocation and benediction. In 1985, a Presbyterian minister delivered the invocation, and a Catholic priest gave the benediction.
The record does not reveal how graduation speakers are initially selected at either Sky High School or Monument High School. At Monument High School's 1985 graduation ceremony, a Protestant minister delivered both the invocation and the benediction. At Sky High School, the same Methodist pastor has given the invocation and the benediction every year since that school's first graduation ceremony in 1977.
As the District's counsel acknowledged at oral argument, District officials give final approval to the selection of those who deliver the graduation prayers. Apart from a single nonreligious benediction at one high school in one year and a religious benediction at the same school the next year, every invocation or benediction in this case has been delivered by either a Protestant minister or a Catholic priest.
With the exception of a benediction by a teacher at Yucca Valley High School in 1985, all the invocations and benedictions at issue had explicitly religious content. For example, the benediction at Yucca Valley High School in 1986 was as follows:
Similarly, the invocation given that year at Yucca Valley High School concluded with these words:
Plaintiffs Jim Sands and Jean Bertolette are taxpayers residing within the District. They object to the inclusion of religious invocations, benedictions, or any other religious ritual at public school graduation ceremonies in the District. After unsuccessful efforts to persuade District officials to cease the practice of including prayers at graduations, in June 1986 they brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the District and its officials from including religious invocations at public school ceremonies. They proceeded under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a, which authorizes taxpayers' actions against local public entities to enjoin the unlawful expenditure of public funds. It is not disputed that the graduation ceremonies are conducted on public school property, are publicly funded, and are planned by public school administrators who also participate in the ceremonies in their official capacities.
In July 1987, while this case was pending in the trial court, the Court of Appeal held in Bennett v. Livermore Unified School Dist. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1012, 238 Cal.Rptr. 819 that the inclusion of religious invocations at high school graduation ceremonies violated both the state and federal Constitutions. After the decision in Bennett, the parties in this case made cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion and denied the District's motion. The court entered judgment prohibiting the District and its officials from conducting or attempting to conduct religious invocations and benedictions at any public school ceremonies in the District.
The District appealed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the Bennett decision and reversed the trial court's judgment. We granted review to resolve the conflict on this constitutional question.
The federal Constitution mandates that government "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." (U.S. Const., First Amend.) The former provision, known as the establishment clause, forbids government affiliation with religious beliefs and institutions. The separation that the establishment clause commands between religion and government manifests and promotes respect for religious pluralism and should not be perceived as hostility or indifference to religion. As the United States Supreme Court has remarked, "No misperception could be more antithetical to the values embodied in the Establishment Clause." (County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties U. (1989) 492 U.S. 573, 610, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 3110, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (hereafter County of Allegheny ).) Indeed, the establishment and free exercise clauses are complementary because scrupulous government neutrality in religious matters enhances religious freedom. As the high court has explained, "[t]he Constitution mandates that the government remain secular, rather than affiliating itself with religious beliefs or institutions, precisely in order to avoid discriminating among citizens on the basis of their religious faiths." (Ibid.)
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1, 15-16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 511-512, 91 L.Ed. 711, the United States Supreme Court's first modern case interpreting the establishment clause, the court enunciated these principles: 1
Sixteen years later, in Abington...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rowe v. Superior Court, No. B070406
...one religious view inevitably tends to "prohibit the free exercise" of others. (See Sands v. Morongo Unified School District (1991) 53 Cal.3d 863, 870, 281 Cal.Rptr. 34, 809 P.2d 809.) However, the two clauses come into conflict when secular laws, although neutral as to religion in their in......
-
Vernon v. City of Los Angeles
...clause as being more protective of the principle of separation than the federal guarantee. Sands v. Morongo Unified Sch. Dist., 53 Cal.3d 863, 281 Cal.Rptr. 34, 45, 809 P.2d 809, 820 (1991) (en banc) (internal citations and quotations omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 3026, 1......
-
Smith v. Fair Employment and Housing
...are, and should be, the first line of defense for individual liberties in the federal system." (Sands v. Morongo Unified School Dist. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 863, 906, 281 Cal.Rptr. 34, 809 P.2d 809, conc. opn. of Mosk, J. (hereafter cited as Sands.); cf. State of Oregon v. Kennedy (1983) 295 Or. ......
-
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Whitehead
...Supreme Court's treatment of its constitution, also cited by the Separationists. In Sands v. Morongo Unified School District, 53 Cal.3d 863, 281 Cal.Rptr. 34, 809 P.2d 809, 820-21 (1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1218, 112 S.Ct. 3026, 120 L.Ed.2d 897 (1992), only three of seven just......
-
The Green Mountain boys still love their freedom: criminal jurisprudence of the Vermont Supreme Court.
...423 N.W.2d 823, 829-32 (Wis. 1988); State v. Rodgers, 349 N.W.2d 453, 459 (Wis. 1984). (22) See Sands v. Morongo Unified Sch. Dist., 809 P.2d 809, 820 (Cal. 1991); Doswell v. State, 455 A.2d 995, 997-98 nn.2-4 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1983); People v. Marxhausen, 171 N.W. 557, 560-61 (Mich. 1919......
-
The transformation of the California Supreme Court: 1977-1997.
...1990) (holding that the provision was "an invalid revision of the California Constitution"). (68) See Sands v. Morongo Unified Sch. Dist., 809 P.2d 809, 810 (Cal. 1991) (holding that prayers at a public school graduation violated the U.S. and California (69) See Legislature of Cal. v. Eu, 8......
-
A decade after Smith: an examination of the New York Court of Appeals' stance on the free exercise of religion in relation to Minnesota, Washington, and California.
...instances in which federal law was instrumental in deciding California state cases. (110) Sands v. Morongo Unified School District, 809 P.2d 809 (Cal. 1991) dealt with taxpayers who wanted a declaratory judgment and an injunction against school officials who wanted religious invocations inc......