GRISD Partisan prayer at school board meeting August 26, 2024
The issues of prayer at what should really, at least in my opinion, be a secular government meeting, is whether, first, the prayer is *legislative* in nature, since the Supreme Court has previously ruled that school-sponsored prayer violates the Establishment clause of the constitution. SCOTUS has not definitively ruled on school board prayer at this point. But IF it is legislative prayer, the same principle in Town of Galloway versus Greece is in effect. That is, the prayer is NOT directed to those in attendance but the legislators AND there can be no coercion of the attendees to join in the prayer. Basic principle as this.
Over 50 years of Supreme Court precedent has firmly ruled that prayer at school events is unconstitutional. School board meetings are more like school-sponsored events than legislative meetings, and public schools must not advance or endorse religion. Students often attend school board meetings, and the courts have repeatedly recognized the importance of protecting children from school-sponsored prayer. Children and adolescents are just beginning to develop their own belief systems, and they absorb the lessons of adults as to what beliefs are appropriate or right.
The best practice is to have no prayer at the beginning of meetings.
So, on that basis, whoever “John” is, apparently a board member? asking the audience to bow their heads is coercive and more than inappropriate.
“John”? led the prayer and started by telling everyone to please bow your head.
Sept 16, 2024 School Board Meeting. Dr Overbo did a partisan prayer. In this instance, Overbo, who is not a school board member, but an employee of the district, does a prayer but does not direct the audience to join in.
The question, here, though, is whether, IF children are in attendance (giving speeches, giving or receiving awards, or there to do a pledge of allegiance, it can be considered coercive that they are even in the presence of a school board prayer. Certainly no one attending a board meeting has to participate in any prayer and can leave the room or just ignore it if they want, but with children, isn’t a prayer given by adults under the guise of a board meeting putting a thumb on the scale? And, of course, prayers are not mandatory at any government meeting and it’s a shame that elected officials would seek to divide the public on the basis of partisan prayer.
the Sixth Circuit held that these school board meeting prayers were governed by the Supreme Court’s school prayer jurisprudence because “the school board, unlike other public bodies, is an integral part of the public school system.”206 These meetings were integral to the public school system, as they were “conducted on school property by school officials, and . . . attended by students who actively and regularly participate[d] in the discussions of school-related matters.”207 The court emphasized that the school board’s distinct student constituency set its function apart from other legislative bodies.208 Here, the court spent considerable time outlining the unique nature of this constituency of minors and its lack of access to the electoral process: “Unlike ordinary constituencies, students cannot vote. They are thus unable to express their discomfort with state-sponsored religious practices through the democratic process. Lacking a voice in the electoral process, students have a heightened interest in expressing their views about the school system through their participation in school board meetings.”209
Student attendance of these meetings also contributed to the court’s determination that the school board prayer was subject to school prayer jurisprudence, rather than the legislative prayer exception.210 Students were incentivized to attend the school board meetings because the board made all-encompassing policies regarding student activities in the public schools.211 Students were regularly honored at these meetings, and students who wanted to challenge their exclusionary discipline were statutorily required to do so at the meetings.212 Consequently, these students attended the meetings not as “a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity.”213
The court also rejected the State’s argument that the school board’s deliberative processes were “basically between adults” for multiple reasons.214 First, the board members directly communicated with students, and such communication should exemplify the democratic values that the public school system was designed to foster in the nation’s youth.215 Second, the students were unique participants who were “directly involved in the discussion and debate” of the meetings.216 They were not idle or incidental spectators like legislative gallery members.217 Finally, the court focused on the coercive environment of the school board meetings with the “far more captive audience” of students there as compared to school graduations.218 This included students who challenged their disciplinary action in that forum as required by law, the student board representative, and the “students who would simply like to have a say in their education by commenting on or otherwise influencing school policy.”219
Based on these findings and given the school board’s nature as “an integral part of the public school system,” the court held that the Lemon test, rather than the Marsh legislative prayer exception, applied to these prayers.220 The court was clear that the policy was “so inextricably intertwined with the public schools that it must be evaluated on the same basis as the schools themselves.”221 In applying Lemon, the court found the school board’s claimed secular purpose of the prayers—to bring increased decorum to the meetings—was dubious, given the board president’s express linkage of the prayers to Christian beliefs.222 It also found that the prayers’ calls for divine assistance and references to Jesus exceeded what was needed “to solemnize or bring a more businesslike decorum” to the meetings.223 As a result, the court determined the prayers did not satisfy the secular purpose prong of Lemon.224
The court also found that the prayer practice failed the second Lemon prong, because “the practice of opening each school board meeting with a prayer has the primary effect of endorsing religion.”225 This was based on the facts that the “prayers in this case were clearly sectarian, with repeated references to Jesus and the Bible, the current school board president is himself a Christian minister who personally delivers the majority of the prayers, and the setting is the public body that constantly interacts with elementary and secondary school children.”226 Because these circumstances would lead any reasonable observer to conclude “that the school board was endorsing Christianity,” the primary effect prong of Lemon was also not satisfied.227
Finally, the court determined that the prayers did not pass the third prong of the Lemon test because they resulted in an “excessive entanglement of government with religion.”228 Similar to Lee, the court found that the prayer bore “the imprint of the State” because the school board chose to have a public meeting prayer, selected the religious leader to deliver the prayer, and most recently allowed the board president to give the prayer.229
Consequently, the court held that the school board meeting prayers violated the Establishment Clause.230 Here, the court found that “the government, through its school officials, [chose] to introduce and exhort religion in the school system” to the point where “the school board’s involvement in promoting prayer cross[ed] the line of constitutional infirmity.”231 Therefore, “[b]ecause the school board’s practice . . . convey[ed] the message of government endorsement of religion in the public school system,” the Sixth Circuit found the public school board meeting prayers were inconsistent with the First Amendment.232
In 2011, the Third Circuit also deemed school board meeting prayers unconstitutional in Doe v. Indian River School District.233 Like Coles, the court determined that the key issue in analyzing the school board’s “long-standing policy of praying at its regularly-scheduled meetings, which [were] routinely attended by students from the local school district,” was whether this practice fell under the Marsh legislative prayer exception or was subject to traditional school prayer jurisprudence.234 The court determined that the legislative prayer exception did not apply and that the prayers failed the Lemon test and the endorsement test.235
Note that there is a case for Birdville ISD in which the school board opened up meetings with student led (NOT BOARD LED) comments, which could involve prayer
The 5th Circuit Court had said in its March decision the key question was “whether this case is essentially more a legislative-prayer case or a school-prayer matter.” It said student-led prayers for legislative bodies differed from unconstitutional prayers in public schools and noted a 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed prayers at a town council meeting in Greece, New York.
Because the Supreme Court has not explictly rules on this, there is a circuit split (9th circuit)
I’m putting the guidance of the US government from 2023 here in full
Side note:
