Lee v. Weisman

Petitioners
Robert E. Lee, et al.
Respondent
Daniel Weisman
Petitioners' Claim
That nonsectarian prayers offered as invocations and benedictions at public school graduation ceremonies do not represent an infringement of the Establishment Clause suggesting separation of church and state.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Charles J. Cooper
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Sandra A. Blanding
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Justices Dissenting
William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
24 June 1992
Decision
Affirmed rulings of the district court and court of appeals, which held that,regardless of their content, the offering of prayers at public school graduation ceremonies constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Significance
The ruling constituted a political, if not legal, surprise. With the SupremeCourt comprising a majority of justices appointed by conservative presidents,a decision validating the use of prayer in the public schools was anticipated by many. With this decision, the Court affirmed earlier rulings such as Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) and Marsh v. Chambers (1983). Significantly, the Court also refused a direct request from the administration of President George Bush to review the test for violation of the Establishment Clausedeveloped in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
Political Landscape
Amid what many people saw as increasing social disorder and lawlessness in the 1980s, a strong political movement emerged favoring a more prominent role for religion within the public schools of the United States. This movement particularly emphasized the supposed benefits of prayer in the public schools, believing that a renewed emphasis on religious teachings in a school setting would lessen the perceived waywardness of youth. By the same token, many people feared that the introduction of religion into the public schools would constitute a dangerous abridgement of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which many interpret as calling for the complete separation of churchand state. Throughout the decade of the 1980s, conservative presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush appointed new members to the Supreme Court, including O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, and Thomas, who many hoped would vote to reverseearlier Court rulings barring the introduction of religious teachings or practices into the public schools. A challenge to legal precedent was eagerly awaited by proponents of school prayer.
Graduation Traditions
For many years it was customary for the principals of middle and high schoolsin Providence, Rhode Island to invite religious leaders to give nonsectarianprayers as invocations and benedictions at school-sponsored graduation ceremonies. The school system had, in fact, prepared guidelines for clergy delivering such prayers, to insure that the prayers would not include any direct references to specific deities or saints. Despite this effort of the schools tomake the prayers innocuous and all-inclusive, a middle school student, Deborah Weisman, and her father, Daniel, objected to the use of any prayer at her 29 June 1989 graduation ceremony. Four days prior to the ceremony, the Weismans sought a temporary restraining order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to prohibit the use of prayer at Deborah's graduation. This motion was denied due to a lack of time to fully consider the case, and the graduation ceremony was conducted as planned. Daniel Weisman then filedfor a permanent injunction against the use of prayers at future graduation ceremonies from the district court.
Application of Lemon
The district court held that the use of prayer at public school graduation ceremonies did constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause. To reach itsverdict, the district court applied the three-pronged test for establishinginfringement of the Establishment Clause devised in Lemon v. Kurtzman.The so-called Lemon Test directed that any state-sponsored program, in orderto adhere to the Establishment Clause, must: reflect a clearly secular purpose; have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. The district court did not comment on the first or third stipulations of the Lemon Test, but noted that the use of prayer at official public school functions violated the secondclause, in that by having prayer of any kind at a state function the idea ofreligion in general was advanced. Robert E. Lee, principal of the Nathan Bishop Middle School of Providence, Rhode Island, and representing the petitioners, appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Thecourt of appeals upheld the ruling of the district court, and expanded its scope by stating that the practice of using prayer at official school functionsin fact violated all three prongs of the Lemon Test. The petitioners then appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on 6 November 1991.
A Test for Lemon
In its argument before the Supreme Court, the petitioners maintained that prayer represents an appropriate and effective means to enable students and parents to seek spiritual guidance at important events such as school graduations. The Court was unmoved by either this logic or the prevailing conservative political climate, however, and upheld the ruling of the appeals court by a vote of 5-4. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, made a distinction between this case and Marsh v. Chambers, when the Court had ruled that theuse of a prayer to open a state legislature's session did not constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause. Kennedy maintained that the opening ofa legislature, comprising entirely adults who are there of their own free will cannot be realistically compared to a school graduation, where numerous peer, parental, and social pressures for attendance exist. The Court also notedthat school children are particularly susceptible to coercion through the schools, and as such the behavior of schools with regard to the Establishment Clause must be able to withstand especially careful scrutiny. Justices Blackmun, O'Connor, and Stevens concurred, adding that the Lemon Test was applicableand represented a straightforward means of assessing compliance with the Establishment Clause. Justices O'Connor, Souter, and Stevens also wrote separately to maintain that the Establishment Clause should not only be construed as prohibiting the government from favoring one religion over another, but also as barring government support for religion as opposed to nonreligion. JusticesRehnquist, Thomas, and White, in dissenting from the majority, noted the pervasive tradition of using prayers as invocations and benedictions at a numberof nonreligious events, viewing such prayers as being essentially nonreligious in intent when used in this manner.
Impact
Lee v. Weisman represented a major political blow for proponents of prayer in the public schools. The decision came as something of a surprise to many legal and political analysts, but was in keeping with precedents established by the Court in similar cases. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Court barred prayer in the public schools as an unhealthy union of church and state. This position was affirmed and expanded in Abington School District v.Schempp (1963), in which the Court ruled that school-sponsored devotional activities and Bible readings were unconstitutional under the EstablishmentClause. The Court has continued to adhere to a rigorous interpretation of the Establishment Clause in cases including Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet (1994), where the Court found that the creation of a specialschool district to accommodate the needs of a community comprising entirely of Hasidic Jews was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.
Related Cases

• Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 430 (1962).
  
• Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
  
• Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
  
• Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).
  
• Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
  
• Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 93 U.S. 517 (1994).