### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10092

D AV I D W AL LA CE CR O FT; SH AN N O N K RI STI N E C RO FT, a s Par e nt s a nd N e xtFr i e nd o f

m i no rChi l dr e n P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l an t s v. G O V E R N O R O F T H E ST A TE O F T E XA S, R i c k Perr y D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas

B ef ore K IN G , B E N AV ID E S , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. E D ITH B R O W N C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg e: D avid and S h an n on C rof t , as pa rents an d next f ri en ds of

t h ei r t h ree m i n or ch i l d ren (coll ectively, the “C rofts”) , brin g su i t ag a i n st t h e g ov ern or of the state
o f Te xa s , Ri ck P er r y ( “ Per r y” ) , a r gui ng t hatTe xa s Educ at i o n Cod e § 2 5. 08 2( d) i s an u n consti t u t i on alest abli shm en tof rel i gi on . T h e d ist ri ctcourtgran t ed
sum m ar y j udg m en ti n favorof Per r y, hol di ng t hat§ 25. 082( d) had a s ec ul ar l e gi s l at ive pur po s e a nd was no ta n e s t ab l i s hm e nto f r e l i gi o n. Fort he f

o l l o w i ng
r e a s o n s , w e a f

f i r m. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 16, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10092

The underline d portio ns a r e the provision s adde d orame nded in 200 3, whilethe 1 strickenportion s arethe 1 995provi sion s that weredeleted. 2 F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS S ection 25. 082( d) pr ovi des f ora m andat or y m om entof s i l enc e t o b e observed i n T exas school s i n w h i ch a st u den tm ay “as t h e st u den tchooses, refl ect, pr a y, m ed i tate, or en ga ge i n an y o th er sil en t activity th a t i s n ot l i k ely to i n terfere w i th or d i strac t an oth er stu d en t. ” T EX . E DUC
. C ODE § 2 5. 08 2( d)

. The provi si on , w h i ch becam e ef fect ive S eptem ber 1, 200 3, i s a subsect i on of a broader st atute am en ded at t h e sam e t i m e un der t h e he a di n g “ S choolD ay; P l edg es of Al l e gi anc e ; M i nut e o f Si l e nc e ” (t he “ 20 03 Am e ndm e nt s ” )

. Tex as E duc at i o n Cod e § 25. 082 , i n i t s enti ret y, provi des as f ol l ow s: 1 ( a) A s c ho o lda y s hal lb e a tl e as ts e ve n ho ur s e ac h da y, i nc l udi ng i n t erm i ssi on s and rec esses . (b) T h e board of

t rustees of

each sch o o ldi st ri ctshallrequi re stu d en ts, on ce du ri n g ea ch sch oo l d a y at ea ch sch oo li n the distri ct, t o rec i t e [ pl edg es of

al l egi an ce t o the U n i t ed S t ates an d T exas f l ags] (c) O n w ri t t en request f rom a st u den t ’ s paren tor gu ardi an , a sc h ool di st ri ctshallex cuse t h e stud en tfr om reci t i n g a pl edg e of al l egi an ce u n d e rS u b s e c tio n (b ). (b ) (d ) AT h e b o a r d o f tr u s te e s o f e a c h s c h o o l d is tr ic t m a ys h a ll pr o vi de f

o ra pe r i o d t he o bs e r vance o f o ne m i nut e o f

s i l e nc e a tt he be gi nni ng o f

t he f i r s tcl as s of

ea c h sc ho o ldayate ac h s c ho o li n t he di s t r i c tf

o l l ow i n g t he r e c i t at i o n o f t he pl e dg e s o f

a l l e gi anc e t o t he U n i t ed Stat es an d Tex as f l ags u n der S u bsect i on (b)

. d u rin gw h i ch a D ur i ng t he o ne - m i nut e pe r i o d, e ac h s t ude ntm ay , as t he s t ude nt c ho o s e s, ref

l e c t , pr ay , o rm e di t at e . , o re nga ge i n a ny o t he rs i l e nt act ivi t y t h at i s not l i kely t o i n t erfe re w i t h or di st ractan ot h er st u den t
. E ach t each er orot h er s choolem pl oy e e i n charge of stu d en ts du ri n g th a t p eriod sh a l len su re th a t each of th ose stu d en ts rem a i n s si l en t an d do es n ot a ct i n a m a n n er th a t i s l i k ely to in te r fe r e w ith o rd is tr a c t a n o th e rs tu d e n t. As t he und e r l i ne d a nd s t r i c ke n po r t i o ns i ndi c at e , t he a m e ndm en t s chang e d a 199 5 st atute t h at w as si m pl y en t i t l ed “Sch oolD ay” and provi ded as f ol l ow s:N o. 08- 10092

3 ( a) A s c ho o lda y s hal lb e a tl e as ts e ve n ho ur s e ac h da y, i nc l udi ng i n t erm i ssi on s and rec esses . (b) A s c ho o ldi s t r i c tm aypr ovi de fo ra pe r i o d o f s i l e nc e a tt he be gi nni ng o f

t he f i r s tc l as s o f

ea ch schoo lda y dur i ng w hi c h a st u den tm ay ref

l ector m edi t ate. T EX . E DUC
. C ODE§ 25. 082 ( 199 5)

. Th e 2 003 stat u t e lef tu n t ou ched a b roader, yet rel ated, 19 9 5 p ro v ision en titled “E x e rc ise of C o n stitu tion a l R igh t to P ra y ,” w h i ch
s ta te s th a t: Apu bl i c s c hools t udenthas an abs ol ut e r i ghtt o i ndi vi dual l y, vol untar i l y, and s i l ent l y pr ay o rm edi t at e i n sc hool i n a m anner t hat d o e s n ot d i sru p t t h e instru cti on a lor oth er a ctiviti es o f th e sc h o o l. A per so n m ay notr equi r e, enc our age, orc oe r c e as t udentt o e ngage i n or ref

rai n f rom such p ra y e r or m edi t ati on du ri n g an y school ac t ivi t y. T EX . E DUC
. C ODE§ 25. 901. A s t he di st r i c tco urtnot ed, t he 2003 m om entof s i l enc e pr ovi si on o f § 25. 082 di f fers f rom t h e 199 5 versi on as f ol l ow s: ( 1) i tm ad e t h e provi si on of a m om en tof

si len ce m an da t ory rat h er th a n discretion a ry ; ( 2 ) i t cha n ge d“pe ri od of sil en ce” to “on e m i n u te of si l en ce” ; ( 3) i tadd ed the w ord “pray” t o t h e l i stof desi gn ated o pt i o ns ; ( 4) i ta dde d t he c at c h- al l“o re nga ge i n a ny o t he rs i l e nt act ivi t y t h at i s not l i kely t o i n t erf ere w it h or di st ractan ot h er st u den t” ; an d ( 5) it ad ded a provi si on f or t each ers or ot h er s chool e m pl o ye e s t o m ai nt ai n di s c i pl i ne dur i ng t he o ne - m i nut e pe r i o d. C rof t v. G overnor of

T ex. , 530 F. S upp. 2d 825, 829 ( N
. D
. Tex. 2008)

. The 2003
s t at ut o r y s e c t i o n, on t he w ho l e , al s o m ad e t he fo l l o w i ng c hang e s : ( 1) i ta dde d t he pl edg e of

al l egi an ce t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates f l ag; ( 2) it a d d e d t h e pl edg e of al l egi an ce t o t h e T exas st ate f l ag; an d ( 3) i tprovi ded a procedu re f or exem pti on f rom rec i t i n g ei t h er pl edg e. B eyon d the rel ativ e c h an ges an d ad di t i on s r epresented byt h e provi si on i t s e l f, t he 2 0 0 3 s t a t ut e d o e s no t i nc l ud e a s i g ni ng s t a t e m e nt o r p r e a m b l e b y w h i ch l e gi s l at ive i nt e ntc an be i nfe r r e d. N e ve r t he l e s s , t r ans c r i pt s f r omN o. 08- 10092

Inarticulatingthe purposes of the 200 3 statute , P erryrelies on an October10 , 20 06 2 lett er b y S hirl ey N e el ey , C o m m i s s io n er of th e T ex a s E duc atio n Age ncy , in dic atin g the purpos es of acco mmodating reli gion, encoura gingthoughtful conte mplation, and promoting patriotism. Yet, given that the letter was writte n several years after the statute’s a doptio n an d co nte mp oran eou s withthislitigation , wenee d notdef erto it s interp retation . See, e.g. , In re GWI PCS 1 Inc. , 230 F.3 d 78 8, 8 07 (5thC ir. 2 000) (“where an agency’s interpretation occurs at such a ti m e an d in s uch a m ann er a s to p rovi d e a c o nve ni e nt liti gatio n p o s itio n f or the a gency , weh ave declinedto defer toth e interp retation”)

. The Virgini a l aw towhich Senator Wentworth referred in the committeemeeting was 3 aman datory“minuteof silence” th at wa s hel d co n stitution al b yth e Fourth C ircuit
. Bro wn v. Gilmore , 25 8 F .3d 2 65 (4thC ir. 2 001 ). The Supre me C ourtactuallydenied certiorari, and n everrule d onth e meritsof the ca se . SeeB row n v. Gilmore , 53 4 U .S. 99 6 (2 001 ). S enator Wentworthacknowle dgedthisdis tinctionl ater, b ut argu edth at itwa s i mmateri al. 4 c o m m i t t e e he ar i ngs a nd f l o o rde ba t e s , w hi c h w e r e s um m ar i z e d atl e ngt h b y t he d is tr ic t c o u r t, i d. a t8 37 –4 5, pr o vi de s i gnif i c anti ns i ghti nt o t he pur po s e o f t he l egi sl ati on . Perti n en tdetai l s are as f ol l ow s: 2

• O n F ebru ary 11, 200 3, i n in tro du ci n g i n com m i t t ee t h e f i rst dr af to f Se nat e Bi l l8 3— w hi ch di d no ti nc l ude a pl e dg e a nd w a s d e sig n e d to a m e n d§ 2 5 .90 1 (th e “rig h t to p ra y” se ctio n ), n ot§ 25. 082 (th e “s choolday ” sec t i on )

— i t s s pon sor, Sen ator W en t w ort h , rep eatedl y st ated, “si n ce the U
. S

. S u prem e C ou rt h a s [j u s t ] u p h e l d [ a s i mi l a rma n d a t o r ys t a t u t e ] i n V i r g i n i a we ou gh t at l ea st t o g ive T ex a s stu d e n ts th e op p ortu n i ty to refl ect, m ed i tate orpr a y.” T h e se n a tor a ck n ow l ed ge dth a t a 3 peri od of

si l en ce alr ead y exi st ed i n T exas l aw (u n der § 25
. 08 2) , b ute xp r e s s e d ade s i r e t o ad d “ pr ay e r” t o “br i ng t o t he St at e of Texas
. . . t he advant age and oppor t u n i ty [ t hat V i rgi n i a st u den t s hav e] al ready
. ” Sen atorW en t w orth al so st ated th a t the b i l lw as prom pted by the S u prem e C ou rt
“ r ul i ng uph ol di ng a V i r gi ni a s t at e s t at ut e, ” and t hatal t hough i tm ay n otres t ore t h e a u d ib le prayer t h at “ [ m ] ostT exan s” pre fer , i ti s w hatthe Sup r em e C our tn ow al l ow s, an d al lt hat i ta l l o w s . As t o t he m i nut e o f s i l e nc e b e i ng r equ i red, he th o u g h t t h is w o u ld h e lp re lie v e co n tr o v e r s ya t t h e lo c a l le v e l.

• D i s c us s i ng t he o r i gi nalb i l l , Se nat o rW e nt w o r t h l am e nt e d t he “c o a r s e n in go f s o c ie ty ” a n d“t h e la c k o f p r a y e r in s c h o o ls .” Y et , h e rep eat edl y as se r t ed t hat , “ f orpurpo se s of

l egi sl at ive i nt ent , t hi s i s not a pra yer bi l l
. . . . I t ’ s an oppor t uni t y t o g ive peop l e a chan ce t o spen d 60 sec on ds on a d ai l y basi s t o ref l ectN o. 08- 10092

The evidence p resented for t heAp ril1, 200 3 Hou se C ommitteean d May5, 200 3 4 Hou sef loordis cu ssion s i s limitedto tr an scriptionof the au dio tape s. 5 or m edi t ate orpray. ” H e observed, “ w e w on ’ tkn ow w h et h er t he y’ r e do i ng any o f t ho s e t hr e e t hi ngs . . . [t ] he y m ayb e do i ng s o m e th in ge ls e , b e c a u s e it is a c tu a lly6 0 s e c o n d s o f s ile n c e .” S en atorJan ek ad ded t h at t h e app roach i s “ a m ore c ivi l i zed m om ent[f

or vol untar y pra yerorm edi t at i on]
. . . r at hert han [] th e ca c o p h o n yo f th e s c h o o l n o is e s a n dlo c k e r s s la m m in g .”

• S en atorW en t w ort h di sm i s s e d ac hall en ge t o t h e si l en t , rat h er th a n v e rb a l o rp h y s ic a l, n a tu r e o f v o lu n ta r yp r a y e ra c tiv ityin t h e bi l las a rgua bl y u n consti t u t i on al , an d repea t edl y st ress ed h i s d esire to con form to S u p rem e C ou rt pre ced en t— e . g. , “ I ’m no tt r yi ng t o pas s a bil lt hat ’ s g o i ng t o b e s t r uc k d o w n b y t he U
. S

. S u p rem e C ou rt, an dtha t’ s w h y I’ ve tail ore dthe l anguage t o f ol l ow anot hers t at e s t at ut e t hat ’ s al r eady bee n uph el d by th e U .S . S u p r e m e C o u r t.”

• In t h e F ebru ary 200 3 com m i t t ee m eet i n g, concern w as rai sed b y legisl a tors a b ou t t h e n a tu re of the bil las a n ex cep ti on to t h e non - coerc i on ri gh t s i n § 25. 901 , an d, as t h e di st ri ctcourt r e c o unt e d, w i t ne s s e s t e s t i f i e d o n b o t h s i de s o f

t hi s i s s ue a nd t he b i l lg e ne r a l l y . Pe r t i ne nt l y , Kat hyDo ug l a s o f t he Te xas Ass o c i at i o n o f

Sc ho o lBoa r ds s ugg e s t e d t hatt o “ s ho w . . . t he l egi sl ative i n t en tt o separate t h is iss u e f rom t h e i ssue of pra yer , ” t he bi l lm i ghtbe bet t er sui t ed i n am endi ng § 25. 082 (th e “s c h o o l d a y”), n o t § 2 5 .9 0 1 (th e “r ig h t t o p r a y”).

• A t a M a rch 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 com m i ttee m ee ti n g, Se n a tor W en tw orth announ c ed t hatt he bi l lhad bee n al t er ed t o a m end § 25. 082, no t§ 2 5. 09 1 ( as ur ge d b y M s . D o ugl as ) , i nc l ude pl e dg e s t o t he U n i t ed S t ates an d Tex as f l ags (w i t h an opt- ou t) , an d requ i re s tu d e n ts to s ta n d
. W itn e s s e s te s tifie dfo ra n da g a in s t t h e b ill. A n am en d m e n t w a s m a d e to d elete the ru l e th a t st u d en ts st an d, an d t h e bi l l u n an i m ou sly pa ssed ( 7 t o 0) i n com m i t t ee.

• O n A pri l1, 200 3, t h e rel ated H o u se B i l l793 w as i n t rodu ced t o t he H ous e Pu bl i c E ducat i on C om m i t t ee by R epr es ent at ive B ran ch. Ac c o r di ng t o t he G o ve r no r ’ s r e pr e s e nt at i o ns t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur t , Rep r e s e nt at ive Br anc h s t at e d to t he 4 c o m m it t ee— i n res pon se t o chal l e nge s f r o m c o ll e ague s thatthe bi l lw as “ba t he d i n r e l i gi o [ n] ”

— t hat“ s i l e nc e a tt he b e gi nni ngN o. 08- 10092

6 of t h e d a y is a go od thin g for stu d en ts,
. . . [ a n d ] n ot on l y to f o c us o n the pat r i o t i s m o f t he c o unt r y, t he l o ve o f s t at e , b ut al s o a c o m m o n m o m e nto f p repar at i o n, de l ibe r at i o n, a nd m e di t at i o n t o f

o c us o n t he s e r i o u s b us i ne s s o f e duc at i ng o ur s t ude nt s t hatda y. ” Co- aut ho rRep r e s e nt at ive Bonne n a dde d,
“ I can t el lyou t h e au t h o rs ’in t en t
. . . [i] t ’ s t o give [ st u den t s] a tim e to re a llyth in g[ s ic ] a b o u t th e s e r io u s n e s s o f th e d a y .”

• On Ap r i l4 , 2 0 0 3 , t h e s e n a t e b i l lwa s d e b a t e do n t h e f l o o r . At t hatde ba t e , s e ve r als e nat o r s r ai s e d o bj e c t i o ns t o us i ng t he w or d “ pra y, ” t he m andat or y nat ure of t he m eas ure , and t hat onl y s i l entpraye ri s al l ow ed. Senat orW ent w or t h st at ed t hat
“ t hi s i s no ta s c ho o lpr ay e ra m e ndm e nt , ” “ t hi s b i l lc am e a bo ut as t h e res u l tof

m y readi n g a n ew spap er accoun tl ast year of th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s u p h o ld in gth e V ir g in ia st atute, ” an d “[ s] chooldi st ri ct s s t i l lw i l lbe n eu t ralon rel i gi on e ve n i f t hi s b i l li s pa s s e d .
. . . ” Se nat o rLuc i o a dde d t hatt he pl e dg e he l ps t o “ t e ac h ourki ds Am e r i c ani s m , pa t r i o t i s m , ” a nd
“ t o ha ve a m om en tof si l en ce r eal l y gives a n opp ort u n i t y f or ou r ch i l d ren . . . to pra y jus t m om en taril y t o th eir G od an dto be t h a n k f

u l t h a t t h e y l iv e i n t h e g r e a t e s t c o u n t r y i n t he w o r ld .” A fte r r e s p e c tiv e a m e n d m e n ts w e r e d e fe a te dto re v is it th e is s u e in tw o y e a r s a n dd e le te th e w o r d “ p r a y ,” th e b ill pass ed 27 t o 4
.

• On M a y5 , 2 0 0 3 , t h e b i l l wa s d e b a t e do n t h e Ho u s e f l o o r . At t h at t i m e, R epresentative Bra nc h a s s e r t e d that“ [t] he pri m ary pu rpose of

S. B
. 83 i s t o prom ot e t h e cor e val u es of patri ot i sm and e s t ab l i s h a c o nt e m pl at ive pe r i o d t hat unde r s c o res t he seri ou sne ss o f t h e edu cat i on end eavor. I tdi rect s s chool di st r i c t s t o pr ovi de f

ort he U
. S. pl edge , t he Texas pl edge , t hat i s t h e pl edg e t o t h e T exas f l ag, an d al so a on e m i n u t e peri od o f s ile n c e .”

• F i n al l y, on M ay 6, 2 0 0 3 , t h e bi l lw as deba t ed on t h e H ou se f l oor. R epresentative H u pp of fered an am en dm en tt o m ak e a m i n u t e o f

s i l e n c e u p t o l o c a ls c h o o lb o a r d s ; t h e a m e n dm e nt w as de fe at e d. I n s upp o r to f t he bi l l , Repr e s e nt at ive Edw ar ds l am en t ed “t h at a nu m ber of un desi rabl e t h i n gs ha pp en ed w h e n w e to o k p r a y e ro u t o f s c h o o l.”

• In t h e fi n alH ou se debate on M ay 6, 200 3, t h e bi l l ’ s s pon sor, R epr es ent a t ive B r anch, pr oc l ai m ed t hatt he bi l lof fer s “ anN o. 08- 10092

7 o ppo r t uni t y f

o rt he s c ho o lc hi l dr e n t o s ay t he U
. S. pl e dg e , t he Texas pl edge and have t his m i nute of s i l enc e w hen t hey c an d o a n yth i ng t hey w ant ; buti tdoe s se tt he t one f ort he day t hat t hi s i s se r i ous busi nes s, educ at i on and t hat th ey can con tem p l a te w h a t t h eyplan to do w i th the i r d a y.” In respond i n g t o a chall en ge as to the t yp e of act ivi t y as l i m i t ed t o si l en ce, R epresentative B ran ch opined, “ [ a] l lt h i s bi l ldoes is trie s to h a v e a n e u tra l sp a ce , a p e rio dof silen ce . . . [i]t do e s n’ tdi r e c ta ny ac t ivi t y. ” H e s t at e d f urt he rt hathe u n derst ood that “ a m om en tof si l en ce w h i ch al l ow s f or prayer i s p e r m i s s ib l e c o n s t i t ut i o nal l y, ” a nd t hat“ alt ho ugh [he ] m i ght occasi on al l y di sagree w i t h t h e Su prem e C ou rt , [h e] res pect[ s] i tas t he rul e of

l aw of the l and
. . . . ” Th e bi l lpas se d 132 t o 4 , w ith 1 a b s te n tio n . The D i s t r i c tCour tr e vi e w e d a l lo f t he l e gi s l at ive hi s t o r y anduph e l d t he st atute. I trej ect ed tw o of t h e pu rposes of

fered by P erry: f

ost eri n g pa t ri ot i sm and ac c om m odat i on o f r el i gi on. B utt he c ou rt h el d t hatt he addi t i on o f “ pra y” al o ng w i t h ot he r“ s ubs t ant ive c hang e s t o t he a c t ivi t i e s s t ude nt s c o ul d e nga ge i n, both pri or to, a n d du ri n g, the m om en tof si l en ce” di d serve a sec u l ar pu rpose of
e n c o u r a g in ga p e r io d o f th o u g h tfu l co n te m p la tio n . C roft , 530 F. Supp. 2d at838, 8 4 7
. A s a r e su lt, it su rv ive d th e fi rs t p ro n gof L em on . The c our tal so hel d t hat t h e add i t i on of

“ pray ” di d n otha ve t h e pri m ary ef fec t o f a d v an ci n g rel i gi on or cau se exces sive en t an gl em en tbetw een governm en tan d rel i gi on , an d s o di d n ot
v io la te th e E s ta b lis h m e n t C la u s e . T h e C r o fts a p p e a l.

S TA NDARD OF RE VI EWAND AP PL I CAB LE L AW T h e parti es di spu t e t h e cor rectst an da rd of revi ew f

or t h i s c ase. Perry rel i e s o n Ly n ch v. D o n n elly , 46 5 U
. S. 66 8, 68 1 ( 19 84 ) , t o ar gue t hat a di st ri ct
c o u r t’s fin d in g s o n le g i s l a tiv e p u r p o s e s h o u ldb e a ffir m e du n le s s cle a r ly
erro n eo u s . B u t Lyn ch c am e t o t he Supr e m e Cour tf o l l o w i ng a t r i alo n t he
m e r its
. Se ei d. at 67 1

– 7 2 ; D o n n el l y v. Lyn ch , 52 5 F
. S u p p . 11 5 0 , 11 5 4 ( D
. R
. I. 1 9 8 1 ). T h e s a m e a p p e a r s to b e tr u e o f th e o n lyo th e rca s e ci t e d b yP e r r y , May v . Coo pe r m an , 780 F. 2d 2 4 0, 242 ( 3r d C i r . 1985) (r ef er enc i ng a “f

i nalhear i ng”N o. 08- 10092

8 an d the di st ri ctcourtm ak i n g “ f i n di n gs of facta n d concl u si on s of law in sup port
o f a fin a l j u d g m e n t”). T h i s case, h ow ever, com es t o u s on t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of sum m ary j u dg m en t
. Th erefor e , th e n o rm a l su m m a ryj u d g m e n t sta n d a rdof revi ew app l i es. W e rev i ew “a gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t denovo , appl yi ng t he s am e l egal stan d a rd as th e d i stri ct cou rt. ” Millerv . G o rs k i Wla dy sla w Esta te , 547 F. 3d 273, 277 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. Su m m ary j u dg m en tshou l d be ren dered i f t h e rec ord de m o ns t r at e s t hat“ t he r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue as t o a ny m at e r i alfac ta nd t hatt he
m ov a n t i s en ti tl ed to j u d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 (c ). The Supr e m e Cour te s t ab l i s he d ag e ne r alf r am e w ork fo ra nal yz i ng Est ab l i s h m en t C l aus e c hal l e nge s i n Le m o n v . Kur tz m an , 4 0 3 U .S

. 6 0 2 (19 7 1 ). Le m o n has t hre e pr ongs : ( 1) “ t he s t at ut e m usthave a s ec ul arl egi sl at ive pu rpose; ” ( 2) “ i t s pri n ci pl e or pri m ary ef fectm u stbe one that nei t h er adva n ces nori nhi bi t s r el i gi on; ” and ( 3) “ t he s t at ut e m ustnotf os t eran ex c es sive go ve rn m en t en tan glem en t w i th reli gion
. ” I d. a t6 12 –1 3 (i nt e r nalq u ot at i o ns om i tted). In a d d i ti on , a sta tu te ca n n o t d i scrim i n a te am on g re l i giou s sects
w i t hout sho w i ng a c om pel l i ng gov er nm ent al i nt er es t and a “ c l os e f i t. ” S ee L a rs o n v. V

a len te , 4 5 6 U .S

. 2 2 8 , 2 4 7 (19 8 2 ). I n eval u ati n g a secul ar pu rpose, i t“ m u stbe si n cere; a l aw w i l lnot pass
c o n s tit u tio n a l m u s te r i f t h e s e c u la rp u r p o s e a r tic u la te db yth e le g is la tu r e is
m ere l y a sh a m . ” W

allace v. Jaf

f ree , 472 U
. S

. 38, 64 ( 198 5) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks om i t t ed). B u tthe st atute n eed n oth ave “ excl u sivel y secul ar” obj ect ives. I d. Rat he r , t he “ t o uc hs t o ne ” i s ne ut r al i t y, a nd i ti s o nl y “ [ w ] he n t he g o ve r nm e nt
a cts w i th the osten sibl e a n d pr ed om i n a n t pu rp ose of a d va n ci n g re l i gion [th a t] i t v i o l a t e s t h a tc e n t r a lEs t a b l i s h m e n tCl a u s e v a l u e o f o f f i c i a lr e l i g i o us n eu trali ty. ” Mc Cr e a r y Co un ty v . ACLU, 5 45 U
. S. 8 44 , 8 60 ( 20 05 )

. I n McC reary Co u n ty , t he Supr e m e Cour tr e vi e w e d a l lo f t he t i m e s t hati t h ad inval i da t e d a st atute because of

an i l l egi t i m ate purp ose and deter m i n ed that “[i] n ea ch case,N o. 08- 10092

9 th e g o v e r n m e n t ’s a c t i o n w a s h e l du n c o n s t i t u t i o n a lo n l yb e c a u s e o p e n lya v a ila b le da t a sup ported a com m on sense concl u si on t h at a rel i gi ou s obj ect ive perm eat ed th e g ov ern m en t's a cti on . ” I d. at 863 ( em ph asi s add ed). W h i l e t h e pu rpose req u i rem en t “serv es a n im p orta n t fu n cti on , ” itis “ra rely
. . . d eterm i n a tive . ” I d. at 859 ( qu ot ati on om i t t ed). Th i s i s “ presum ably beca u se g overnm en tdoes not ge ne r al l y ac tunc o ns t i t ut i o nal l y, w i t h t he pr e dom i n antpur po s e o f a dv anc i ng reli gion
. ” I

d. at863. W h at i s i m portant f or L em on ’ s p u rp os e pr ong i s t he o ver al ll egi sl at ive p u r p o s e o f th e a ll e g e d ly u n c o n s t it u t io n a l p r o v is io n , n o t a p a r t ic u la rle g is la t o r ’s
m o tiv e in s u p p o r tin git. Bd. of E d u c. of

W e s t s i deCm ty . Sc hs
. v . Me rge ns , 496 U
. S

. 226, 249 ( 1990)

. Som e l egi sl at or s m ay have r el i gi ous m ot ives , butt hat al on e does n ot i n vali da t e an act w i t h an ot h erw i se s ecul ar l egi sl ative pu rpose. See , e . g. , i d. ( “ E ven i f s om e l egi sl at or s w er e m ot ivat ed bya c onvi c t i on t hat
r e l i gi o us s pe e c h i n pa r t i c ul ar w as va l uab l e andw o r t hy o f pr o t e c t i o n, t hata l o ne w ou l d n ot i n vali da t e t h e A ct , becau se w h at i s r el evan ti s t h e l egi sl ative pu rpose of t h e st atute, n ot t h e possibl y rel i gi ou s m ot i ves of t h e l egi sl ator s w h o ena ct ed t he l aw. ” )

. Lo ng ag o , t he Supr e m e Cour tf o und t hatt he “ da i l y r e c i t at i o n o f t he Pl edge of

A l l egi ance , orev en t he o bs ervanceof a m om entof

r eve r ents i l enc e a t t he o peni ng of

c l as s, m ay . . . s erve t he s ol el y s ec ul arpurpo se s of t he dev ot i onal act ivi t i es w i t h ou tj eopa rdi zi n g ei t h er t h e rel i gi ou s l ib e rtie s of an y m em bers of t h e com m u n i t y or t h e prope r deg ree of separati on betw een t h e sph eres of reli gion a n d go ve rn m en t. ” Sc h. D i s t
. of A bi ngt o n Twp. v . Sc he mpp , 374 U
. S. 203, 281 ( 1963)

. M or e r ec ent l y, t he Suprem e Courtan d t hre e Ci r c ui tC our t s have h e a r d d ir e c t c h a lle n g e s to m o m e n t o f s ile n c e s ta tu te s . I n W allace v. Jaf

f ree , th e Su p rem e C ou rt struck do w n an A l a b a m a statu te t h at had am en ded an earl i er m o m e n t o f s i l en ce s t atute t o add t h e opti on f or vol unt ar y pr ay e r . 4 72 U
. S. a t6 1. I n W allace , t he l e g i s l a t iv e h i s t o r ywas a b s o lu te l y c l e a r t h a t t h e s ta tu te h a dth e p u r p o s e o f a d v a n c in gre lig io n . I d. atN o. 08- 10092

10 56– 57. Th e spon sor of t h e bi l l st ated t h at i tw as an “ ef f ortt o ret u rn vol u n t ary p r a y e r” to p u b lic s c h o o ls , a n d th a t th e b ill h a d n o s e c u la rp u r p o s e . I d. N o rd id th e sta te “p re se n t ev id e n ce of anys e c u la r p u rp ose . ” I d. a t 5 7 . T h e o n ly
s ubs t ant ive c hang e w as t he a ddi t i o n o f “ o rv o l unt ar y pr ay e r” to apr e vi o us statu te w h i ch m a n d a ted a m o m en t of si l en ce “f

or m ed i tati on . ” I

d. a t5 8. The C ou rtf ou n d that t h ere w as no s ecul ar pu rpose f or t h i s c h an ge, si n ce vol u n t ary p r a y e r w a s a lr e a d y p r o te c te d b y th e p r e v io u s s ta tu te
. Id
. B e c aus e t he r e w as no se cu la r p u rp o se , th e sta tu t e v iola te dth e fi rs t p ro n gof L em on and w as u n c o n s tit u tio n a l. I

d. at61. Jus t i c e O ’ Conno rc o nc ur r e d i n W allace , butw r o t e se pa r at e l y t o e xa m i ne m om en tof

si l en ce s t atutes i n m ore det ai l
. S h e f ou n d that a m om en tof si l en ce i s “ n otinh erentl y rel i gi ou s, ” a n d t h at bym an da t i n g such a peri od, “ a S t ate does
n ot n ece ssa ri l y e n d orse an y a ctivity th a t m i gh t occu r d u ri n g th e p eriod
. ” Id
. at 72– 73. E ven i f

t h e st atute s peci f

i es a st u den tm ay p ra y , “th e State h as not th ere b y en cou ra ge d p ra ye r o ve r o th er sp ecif i ed altern a tive s. ” I

d. a t 7 3
. B u t if a teacher t el l s c h i l dren t o p ray, or i f the face of the st atute orl egi sl ative h i st ory p r o m o te s p r a y e ro v e ro th e ra lte r n a tiv e s , th e n th e s ta te m a yb e im p r o p e r ly
e n d o r s in gre lig io n . I d. Exam i ni ng l egi sl at ive purpos e, how eve r , i s a“ d e f er ent i al andl i m i t e d” i nqui r y, a nd c o ur t s ha ve “ no l i c e ns e t o ps yc ho ana l yze t he l eg i slators.” I

d. at 74. “ If a l egi sl ature exp ress es a pl au sibl e secul ar pu rpose f or a m om en tof

si l en ce s t atute i n ei t h er t h e t ext or t h e l egi sl ative h i st ory . . . t h en cou rts sh ou l d g en era l l y d efer to tha t st a ted i n ten t. ” I d. at 74– 75. “ S i n ce t h ere i s argua bl y a secul ar ped agog i calval u e t o a m om en tof si l en ce i n pu bl i c s chool s, cou rts sh ou l d fi n d a n im p rop er p u rp ose b eh i n ds u ch a statu te on l y if the statu te
on i t s face [ or] i n i t s of f i ci all egi sl ative h i st ory . . . su ggests i tha s t h e pri m ary p u rp ose of en d orsin g p ra ye r. ” I d. a t7 5. I n W

al l ace , h o w e v er, give n i ts l egi sl ative h i st ory an d the factt h at no sec u l ar pu rpose w a s ad van ced, Ju st i ceN o. 08- 10092

11 O ’ Conno rf

o und t hat“ t he c o nc l us i o n i s una vo i da bl e t hatt he pur po s e of t he statu te i s to en d orse pr a ye r i n pu b l i c sch oo l s. ” I d. at77. S oon af t er W allace , t he Thi r d Ci r c ui t i nva l i da t e d a N e w Je rsey m om e nt
o f s ile n c e s ta tu te
. May , 780 F. 2d2 40
. The D i s t r i c tCour ti n May had f ound t hat t he N ew Je r se y s t at ut e, w hi c h doe s not m ent i on pra yer , vi ol at ed al lt hre e pr ongs o f L em on . I

d. a t2 47
. The Thi r d Ci r c ui the l d t hatt he r e w as no v i o l at i o n o f t he
e ffe c t or e n ta n g le m e n t p r o n g s . I d. at247 –5 0. The di s t r i c tc o ur t , ho w e ve r , r ul i ng bef ore W allace , ha d f

o und t hatt he s t at e ’ s pr o f fe r e d s e c ul arpur po s e — “ t o pr o vi de
a tr a n s itio n fr o m n o n s c h o o l life to s c h o o l life ”— w a s p r e te x tu a l. I d. at251
. The T h i rd Ci r c ui t c o ul d no t s ay t hat t hi s f i ndi ng w as “ c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us , ” andso a ccep ted th e dist ri ct cou rt’ s fi n d i n g t h a t th ere w a s n o secu l a r p u rp ose . Id. at 252. The Th i r d C i r c ui tdi d notf i nd a ny evi denc e, how eve r , t hatt he s t at ut e w as p a s s e d to e n c o u r a g e p r a y e ro v e ro th e r a l t e r n a tiv e s . I d. But“be c aus e t he Su pre m e Courthas expr es sly r equi r ed a se c ul arpurpo se w hen co nsi der i ng a consti t u t i on alchal l en ge u n der t h e est abli shm en tc l aus e a n d becau se t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t m a d e a fin d in gth a t [t h e s ta tu te ] la c k e ds u c h a s e c u la rp u r p o s e , w e h o ld th e N ew Je rsey statu te to be u n con sti tu ti on a lu n d er t h e f i rst am en d m en t. ” I

d. at253. In 19 9 7 , the E l ev en th C i rcu i t u p h eld a G eo rg i a m om en t of si l en ce sta tu te i n B o w n v . G w in n ett Co u n ty S ch o o l D istric t, 1 12 F. 3d1 46 4 ( 11 t h Ci r . 1 99 7)

. The st atute al l o w e d fo r a m om en tof si l en ce, bu tspeci f

i cal l y st ated t h at i tw as not i n t en ded t o be cond u ct ed as a rel i gi ou s s ervi ce, an d a p ream bl e t o t h e actst ated th a t t h e p u r p o s e w a s to a llo w a m o m e n t o f q u ie t r e fle c tio n fo rs tu d e n ts
. I d. at 146 6. Th e l egi sl ativ e h i st ory i n di cat ed that t h e spon sor h ad broug h tt h e act fo r w a r d a s p a r t o f a p a c k a g e to re d u c e y o u th v io le n c e . I d. a t1 46 7. The l eg i slative tran scripts rev e a le dtha t som e H ou se m em b ers w a n ted to i n sti tu te
s c h o o l p r a y e ra n d s a w t h e a c t a s a c c o m p lis h in gth a t g o a l. I d. Afew m em bers oppos ed t he ac tforthatreas on, al t hough se ver als poke i n favorand s t at ed t hatN o. 08- 10092

12 t h ey di d n otbel i eve t h at i tau t h ori zed schoolp rayer or h ada rel i gi ou s pu rpose. I d. T h e Bo wn c o ur tf i r s te xa m i ne d t he s t at ut o r y l ang uag e , a nd f o und t hatt he pream bl e an d act espou sed a cl ear secu l ar p u rpose of al l ow i n g a m om en tof qu i et
r e fle c tio n . Id
. at 1469–71. W hi l e t he c our t not ed t hat t he l egi sl at ive hi st or y w as

“ so m ew hatc onf

l i c t i ng, ” i thel d t hat i tw as noti nco nsi st entw i t h t hi s se c ul ar p u r p o s e . I

d. at1471. Even t hough so m e o f t he l egi sl at or s m ay have i ndeed had rel i gi ou s m ot i ves , t h e l an gu age of t h e st atute r evealed a cl earl y secul ar pu rpose, w h i ch satisf

i ed the f

i rst L em on p ron g. I d. at1472. The c our tal so f ound t hat ther e w as no i m per m i ss ibl e e f fec tof t he s t at ut e o rany r es ul t i ng exc es sive e n ta n g le m e n t o f th e s ta te w ith re lig io n . I d. at1472–7 4. In 2 0 0 1 , th e F ou rth C i rcu i t u p h eld a V i rg i n i a m om en t of s ile n c e s tatu te i n B row n v. G i l m ore, 258 F
. 3d265 ( 4t h C i r . 200 1)

. I n 197 6, V i r gi ni a e nac t e d a
m om en t of

si l en ce sta tu te w h i ch au th orized , bu t did n ot req u i re, sch oo l s to
o b s e r v e a m o m e n t of s ile n c e w h e r e s tu d e n ts co u ld“m e d ita te , p r a y , o re n g a g e in
a n y o th er sil en t activity. ” I d. a t2 70
. The Vi r gi ni a l e gi s l at ur e l at e ra m e nde d t he
s ta tu te in 2 0 0 0 to re q u ir e th a t e v e r ys c h o o l p r o v id e t h e m in u te o f s ile n c e . Id
. at 2 7 1
. In a n a l yz i n g th e legisl a tive pu rp ose , the F ou rth C i rcu i t f i rst ex a m i n ed i ts t e xta nd f

o und t w o s e c ul arpur po s e s : to p r o m o t e no n- r e l i gi o us m e di t at i o n a nd to a c c o m m o d a te re lig io n . I d. at276. Th e c our t hel d t hat a “ st at ut e havi ng dual l egi t i m ate purp oses— on e cl earl y secul ar an d o n e t h e accom m oda t i on of
r el i gi on— c annot r un af oulof th e fi rst L em on pr on g.” I d. a t2 77
. N o rdi d t he sta tu te fac ia ll yv iola te th e se co n dp ro n gof L em on “ given t he st a tu te’ s fac i al
n eu t ral i t y betw een rel i gi ou s an d n on rel i gi ou s m odes of intr ospect i on a n d other sil en t activity. ” I

d. T h e cou rt a l so did no t fi n d a n ex cess iv e e n ta n g le m en t, hol di ng t hatt he “ i nvolve m en t i n re l i gi on i s negl i gibl e, [w i t h t he t eac heronl y] i n form i n g st u den t s t h at one of t h e perm i ssibl e opti on s du ri n g t h e m om en tof sil en ce is pra ye r. ” I

d. at278.N o. 08- 10092

13 In al lf ou r of t h ese c ases, n on e of

t h e court s f

ou n d that m om en tof si l en ce sta tu t es had t h e pri m ary ef fectof adv an ci n g or i n h ibi t i n g rel i gi on , or f ost ered excessive govern m en tentan gl em en tw i t h rel i gi on . A l lof t h e courts f

ocused on th e le g is la tiv e p u r p o s e o f th e s e s ta tu te s . W allaceo v e r t u r n e d t h e A l a b a ma st atute becau se the st ate di d n otadv an ce any s e c u la r p u r p o s e , a n d t h e s t a t u t e ’s sp on sor e xp l i ci tl y sta ted tha t t h e s ta tu te w a s m ea n t t o b ri n g p ra ye r ba ck i n to
s c h o o ls
. May ove r t urned t he N ew Jers ey st at ut e b ec ause t he di st r i c tc our thad f ou n d that t h e prof

f ered secul ar pu rpose w as pret extual. T h at f i n di n g w as not
c le a r lye r r o n e o u s , a n d w ith n o o th e rs e c u la rre a s o n s o ffe r e d , t h e T h ir dC ir c u it
w a s c o m p e lle d t o f

in d t h e s ta tu te u n c o n s tit u tio n a l. Al l o f t he s e c as e s f o l l o w t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s a s s e r t i o n i n McC rearytha tstat u t es h ave on l y been overt u rned
o n th e p u rp o se p ro n gof L em on i f a r e l i gi o us pur po s e “ pe r m e at e d” t he g o v e r n m e n t’s a c tio n o rth e s e c u la rp u r p o s e s e r v e s o n lya s a “s h a m .” DI S CU S S I ON A. St andi ng C o n s tit u tio n a l s ta n d in g h a s th r e e e le m e n ts : (1 ) a n “inju r yin fa c t” th a t is ( a) c onc r et e a nd part i c ul ar i ze d and (b) a ctu a lor i m m i nent ; ( 2) a c ausal
c o nne c t i o n b e t w een the i nj ur y andt he c o nduc tc o m pl ai ne d o f; a nd ( 3) t he lik e lih o o d th a t a fa v o r a b le d e c is io n w ill re d r e s s th e inju r y . L u j an v. D ef

end ers of Wild lif

e , 5 0 4 U. S. 5 5 5 , 5 6 0

– 6 1 ( 1 9 9 2 )

. Th e Al l i a nc e D efe ns e Fu nd(AD F)
am i cus br i e f

a nd Pe r r y ar gue t hatthe Cr o f t s ha ve no ts t at e d a ny s uf f i c i e nt i nj u ry, an d so l ack stand i n g t o bri n g t h i s c ase. “ T h e l oss of F i rst A m en dm en t f reedom s, f

or even m i n i m al peri ods of t i m e, u n q u estion a b l y co n s tit u tes i rrep a ra b l e inju ry . ” El r o d v
. Bur ns , 427 U
. S. 347, 37 3 ( 19 76)

. The q ue s t i o n t he n b e c o m e s w he t he rt he Cr o f t s ha ve a l l e ge d a pe r s o nall o s s o f

Fi r s t A m en dm entf r e e do m s . I ti s no te no ugh s i m pl y t o a r gue t h at t h ere has been som e vi ol ati on of t h e E st abli shm en tC l au se; t h ey m u stN o. 08- 10092

The Crofts have not argued that they have taxpayer standing to challe ng e the 5 st atute , or th at they h ave suff ered “p sychologic al di sc omfort ,”sowenee d notc on si der thos e argum entsaddr es se d by Perry and theADF amicus
. 14 al l ege a person alvi ol ati on of ri gh t s. V

alley Forge Ch ri st i an Col l
. v. A m s. Un i t ed 5 f or Sepa rat i on of

Ch u rch & S t ate, I

n c. , 4 5 4 U .S

. 4 6 4 , 4 8 6 n .22 (19 8 2 ). T h e C rof

t s h ave chi l dren w h o a re requ i red t o ob serve a m om en tof si l en ce every da y t h ey att en d school
. T h e C rof t s’com pl ai n ta l l eges tha tt h e m om en tof
s il e n c e s t a t u t e v io la t e s th e E s t a b li s h m e n tC la u s e a n dth a tth e irc h il d r e n ’s
c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ght s a r e b e i ng vi o l at e d b y be i ng r e qui r e dt o u n d e r go t he m o m e nt of s i l enc e. Per r y ar gues t hatt he C r of t s have notal l ege d an y s pec i f i c i nj ury t hat resul t ed f

rom parti ci pa t i n g i n t h e m om en tof si l en ce. I n D oe v. T

angi pa h oa Pari sh S chool B oard , 494 F. 3d 494 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) ( en ban c) , t h e F i f

t h C i rcui teval u ated s tan di n g i n an E st abli shm en tC l au se context
. Th e pl ai n t i f fs w ere cha l l en gi n g pray ers sai d at s choolboard m eet i n gs, and t he c o ur t f

o und t hat unl e s s t he y c o ul d pr o ve t hatt he y w e r e “ e xp o s e d t o ” a nd “inju r e d b y” th o s e p r a y e r s , th e yla c k e ds ta n d in g . I d. at 497. B ec ause t her e w as no e vi denc e t hatt he pl ai nt i f fs had eve rat t ended a sc hoolbo ar d m ee t i ng, h o w e v e r , th e yc o u l d n o t p r o v e a n yinju r yfr o m th e p r a y e r s . I d. a t4 99
. The pl ai n t i f f bears t h e bu rden t o prove st an di n g “ w i t h t h e m an n er and degree of
ev i d en c e re q u i red at su cces sive sta ge s of t h e li ti ga ti on . ” Id
. at4 98 ( quo t i ng Luj an , 504 U
. S

. at 561 ). B u tt h e D oe c o u r t s p e c ific a llyn o te dth a t t h e yco u ld “certain l y ‘ a ssu m e’tha t t h e D oe s m a y h a ve be en off en d ed b y an i n vo ca ti on at a sch oo l b oa rd m ee ti n g, i f th ey a tten d e d o n e .” I d
. A f t er a bench t ri albased on st i pul at i ons , how eve r , t he D oe s had br ought f or w ar d no evi denc e t hatt hey had
ever a tten ded a sc h oolboard m eet i n g an d h eard the of fen di n g pray er, so t h ey la c k e d s ta n d in g . Id
. A tt h i s stage of l i t i gati on — sum m ary j u dg m en t

— t h e pl ai n t i f fs’bu rden on st andi ng i s onl y t o r ai se an i ss ue o f m at er i alfac t
. The C r of t s have al l ege d t hatN o. 08- 10092

15 t hei rc hi l dre n ar e e nro l l ed i n T exas publ i c s c hool s and ar e r equi r ed t o o bs erve th e m o m e n t o f s ile n c e d a ily
. P e r r yd o e s n o t d is p u te th is fa c t , a n dw h ile s till a pa rt y, t h e sc h ooldi st ri ctadm i t t ed i n i t s answ er t h at t h e C rofts ’chi l dren at t e nde d s c ho o lt he r e . The Cr of t s’chi l dr e n a r e de f i ni t e l y pr e s e ntf

o rt he
m o m e nto f

s i l e nc e , a nd l i ke i n D oe , w e ca n ass u m e t h a t th eyor th eir pa ren ts have be en o f

fended— el se t hey w oul d notbe c hal l engi ng t he l aw . Thati s enough to esta b l i sh stan d i n g a t t h i s stag e of the su i t. The ADF am i c us c l ai m s t hata m o m e nto f s i l e nc e c anno tv i o l at e t he E st abli shm en tC l au se, as there i s no act ive rel i gi ou s c om pon en t
. B u tt h at i s a que s t i o n t o b e de t e r m i ne d o n t he m e ri t s , w hi c h m us tc o m e a f t e rde t e r m i ni ng
w h e th e rw e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to h e a rth e ca s e . See , e . g. , Plai ns Com m e r c eBank
v. L ong F

am i l y L an d& Catt le Co. , 128 S.C t
. 2709, 2716 ( 2008) ( “ [W ] e b earan i n dep en den tobl i gati on t o assure ou rs e lves t h at j u ri sdi ct i on i s proper bef ore proceedi n g t o t h e m eri t s. ” )

. B ecau se t h e C rof t s hav e cl ai m ed a p ersonalvi o l ati on of t h eir F i rst A m en d m en t ri gh ts, w e h a ve ju ri sd i cti on to d eterm i n e on the m erits
w he t he rt ho s e r i ght s ha ve i n fac tb e e n v i o l at e d. B . E stab l i sh m en t C l a u se 1
. P u rpose I n hi s br i ef, Per r y advanc es t hre e s ec ul arpurpo se s f ort he 2003 Am e ndm e nt s : f

o s t e r i ng pa t r i o t i s m , pr o vi di ng a pe r i o d f o rt ho ugh t f

ul
con tem p l a ti on , an d pr otectin gr eli giou s f ree d om . T h e 2 0 0 3 A m en d m en ts
c hang e d t he w ay t hat e ve r y s c ho o l c hi l d i n Tex as be gi ns t he da y. The y pr o vi de f o rt he r e c i t at i o n o f

t he pl e dg e s o f

a l l e gi anc e t o t he f

l ag s o f t he U ni t e d St at e s a nd T exas, fol l ow ed by a m i n u t e of si l en ce f or st u den t s to “r ef

l ect , p ray, m edi t ate, or en ga ge i n an y o th er sil en t activity .
. . . ” T EX . E DUC
. C ODE § 25. 082
. O n i t s face, t h e st atute s eem s t o serve t w o of t h e above pu rposes: of f ost eri n g pa t ri ot i sm (f or bo t h Am e r i c a and t he St at e o f Tex as ) , a nd o f pr o vi di ng a pe r i o d f o rt ho ugh t f

ul
c o nt e m pl at i o n. Fr o m t he s t at ut o r y l ang uag e al o ne , i tdo e s no ta ppe art hatt heN o. 08- 10092

The Supre me C ourtcon sidere d two other textu al changes in Wallace : th at the new 6 st atuteappliedto allgra de s an d th at itch an gedth e word“ sh all” to“may .” 472U.S. at 58. 16 l egi sl ative pu rpose i n add i n g t h e t erm “ pray ” t o § 25 .08 2 (d ) is t o adv an ce r e l i gi o n, pa r t i c ul ar l y s i nc e t he b i l le xp r e s s l y al l o w s f o ra ny si l en t us e o f

t he
m o m e n t o f s ile n c e , e ith e rre lig io u s o rn o n -r e lig io u s . R e g a r d in gt h e t h ir d s ta te dp u r p o s e , o f p r o te c tin gre lig io u s fr e e d o m , th is p u r p o s e d o e s n o t a p p e a ro n th e fa c e o f th e s ta tu te
. W h ile th e o p tio n to “p r a y” is in c lu d e d in th e 2 0 0 3 A m e n d m e n ts , T e x a s a lr e a d yh a da s ta tu te s p e c ific a lly
s ta tin gth a t s tu d e n ts h a v e “ a n a b s o lu te rig h t” to “s ile n tlyp r a yo rm e d ita te in sch oo l
. ” T EX . E DUC
. C ODE § 25. 901
. A n y pu rpose of p rot ect i n g rel i gi ou s f reedom
w as a l readya ccom pl i shed by thi s earl i er s t atute. Th ere i s al so no st ate- i m posed bur de n o n f

r e e e xe r c i s e ri ght s t hatt he 2 00 3 Am e ndm e nt s pr o t e c ta ga i ns t , a nd so “ protec t i n g rel i gi ou s f reedom ” does not s eem t o be a vali d pu rpose on the face o f th e s ta tu te
. S ee W allace , 472 U
. S

. at 57 n
. 45 (“ [ I] ti s un di spu t ed that .
. . t h ere w as no g o ve r nm e nt alpr ac t i c e i m pe di ng s t ude nt s f r o m s i l e nt l y pr ay i ng f o ro ne m i n u te at th e b eg i n n i n g o f ea ch s c h o olda y; t h u s, the re w a s n o n ee d to

‘ ac c om m odat e’ort o e xem pti ndi vi dual s f r om any ge ner algo ver nm ent al requ i rem en tbecau se of t h e di ct ates of ou r cases i n t erpret i n g t h e F ree E xerci se C la u se .”)

. P ri or t o t h e 200 3 A m en dm en t s, T exas al readyha d a m om en tof si l en ce statu te tha t all ow ed distri cts to pro vid e for a “pe ri od of sil en ce” w h ere stu d en ts
m i gh t “ refl ect or m ed i tate.” T EX . E DUC
. C ODE § 2 5. 082(b) ( 1995)

. The 2003 A m en dm en t s, how ever, i nc l udes e ve r als ubs t antivec han ges such a s t h e add i t i on o f t he pl e dg e s , m ak i ng t he m o m e nto f s i l e nc e m and at o r y, e s t ab l i s hi ng t he i n d efi n i te “pe ri od ” as “on e m i n u te, ” an dall ow i n g stu d en ts t o “p ra y” or “ engage i n a ny o t he rs i l e ntac t ivi t y. ” Thi s c as e i s t hus s o m e w hatdi f fe r e ntt han W

allace , w he r e t he S u prem e C o ur tf o und t hatt he o nl y s ubs t ant ive c hang e w as t he
a d d i t i o n o f

t h e wo r d s “ o rv o l u n t a r yp r a y e r . ” 4 7 2 U. S

. a t5 8

– 5 9
. A s s uc h , we 6N o. 08- 10092

Neither change , however , ha d any effect on the students involved in the liti gation , who were in “kinde rgart en or se condgrade”and to whom the mandat ory language continue d to ap ply. Id
. at59 . In this case, the manysub stantivech anges tothe statutedid applydirectlyto the Crofts’ children. 17 m us tc o ns i de ral lof

t he sub s t ant ive c hang e s i n e va l uat i ng t he pur po s e b e hi nd t h e 200 3 A m en dm en t s. The Cro f

t s f o c us o n t he a ddi t i o n o f t he w o r d “ pr ay” w i t ho ute xa m i ni ng t he
o t he rc hang e s . Butt he am e ndm e nt s w e r e i nt r o duc e d a s a pa c ka ge t o c hang e t he st artof every sc h ooldayt o i n cl u de the p led g e s of al l egi an ce and a m ore c o m p r e h e n s iv e lis t o f a p p r o p r ia te a c tiv itie s d u r in gt h e m in u te o f s ile n c e (its e lf
c hanged f

r om a per i od o f

s i l enc e) ; i n fac t , duri ng t he l egi sl at ive pro c es s, i tw as p u rp ose full y c h a n g e d fr om be i n g a bil ltha t am en d ed the ex ercise of a righ t t o pra y t o b ei ng one t hatam ended t he be gi nni ng of t he s c hool day. Th i s i s notan o m nibus b i l lw i t h pr o vi s i o ns t hatha ve l i t t l e t o no r e l at i o n t o one ano t he r . The Cro f t s do notpoi ntt o any c as e l aw r e qui r i ng us t o par s e t he l e gi s l at ur e ’ s i nt e nt
s o f i ne l y as t o g o w o r d b y w o r d l o o ki ng f o r re l i gi o us pur po s e . I n W allace , t he
on l y reason tha t t h e S u p rem e C ou rtf ocused sol el y on t h e add i t i on of “ pray er”
w as becau se t h at w as t h e o n lys ubst ant ive c hange in th e am endm entt hat af fe c t e d t he c hi l dr en a ti s s ue . 4 72 U
. S. a t5 8– 59
. Con ve r s e l y, i n Bo wn , t he E l eve nt h C i r c ui tc ons i der ed as i ndi c at ive of l egi sl at ive purpos e t hatt he bi l lw as b rou gh t f

orw a rd as p a rt of

a legisl a tive pa ck a ge aim ed at red u ci n g y ou th vi o l e nc e . 1 12 F. 3d at 14 67
. H e r e , w e hav e m ul t i pl e s ubs t ant ive c hang e s a l t e r i ng t he be gi nni ng of

ev er y Texas publ i c s c ho ol d a y, i ncl udi ng t he o pt i on t o e ngage i n “ anyo th e rs ile n t a c tiv ity ” d u r in gth e m o m e n t o f s ile n c e . T EX . E DUC
. C ODE § 2 5
. 0 8 2 (d) ( em p h a sis a d d ed ). W e con sider th e pu rp ose of th e 20 0 3 A m en d m en t, i n cl u d i n g th e a d d i ti on of th e w ord “pra y,” i n this con tex t. F rom the bil l ’ s text, the ob viou s p u rp ose of th e p l ed ge s i s to i n cu l ca te pa t ri ot i sm am on g st u den t s. Foll ow i n g t h e p l edg es w i t h a m i n u t e of si l en ce t h en al l o w s t i m e f

o rre f l e c t i o n be f

o r e st ar t i ng t he sc ho o lday
. Thus , a tl e as tf r o m t heN o. 08- 10092

Where, as here, a valid secul ar purposecan be gleaned fro m thetext of the statute at 7 iss ue, we are not convinc ed of the wisdom of reviewing le gi slativehistory , anar duou s an d potentiallyri sky ta sk. Nevertheless, because the hi storyhere supports the textual purpose, it is unnecessaryto bel abor the point. 18 sta t u t ory t ext, i tseem s t h at t h e pu rpose of t h e 200 3 A m en dm en t s i s t o f ost er pa t ri ot i sm a n d p r o vi de f o ra pe r i o d, if

a s t ude nts o de s i r e s , o f t ho ugh t f

ul
c o n te m p la tio n . W ith in th is co n te x t, th e p u r p o s e o f § 2 5 .0 8 2 (d ) is cle a r ly pe r m i s s ib l e . I n a d d i t i o n t o a d d i n g “ p r a y , ” t h e n e w t e x t a d d s “ e n g ag e i n a ny ot h er s i l en tact ivi t y t h at i s not l i kely t o i n t erf ere w i th o r d istractan ot h er stu den t
. ” Th e neu t ral , non - coerc ive pu rpose of provi di n g exam pl es of perm i ssibl e si l en tact ivi t i es du ri n g t h e m i n u t e of si l en ce att h e st arto f a now m ore or gan i zed an d contem pl ative schooldayi s b u t t ress ed f u rt h er by t h e fact t h at § 25. 901 , w h i ch st i l lprovi des t h at “ [ a] person m ay n otrequi re, encou rage, o rco e r c e a s tu d e n t” v is -a -v is p r a y e r , w a s in te n tio n a llyle ft u n a m e n d e d
. T EX . E DUC
. C ODE§ 2 5 .9 0 1
. The l e gi s l at ive hi s t o r y ge ne r al l y s upp o r t s t he s e s e c ul arpur po s e s . U nl i ke 7 i n W allace , w h ere t h e spon sori n g st ate s en atorst ated tha th i s s ol e pu rpose f or th e b ill a t is s u e w a s “a n e ffo r t to re tu r n v o lu n ta r yp r a y e rto th e p u b lic s c h o o ls ,” 4 7 2 U .S . a t 5 7 (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d ), th e s u p p o r tin gle g is la to r s in Tex a s , p a r t i c ul a r l yi n t he H o us e d e b a t e s , e m p ha s i z e dt he n e e df o ran oppor t uni t y t o b egi n t he s c hoolday w i t h pat r i ot i c pl edge s and a r ef l ec t ive
m o m e nt
. I n May , th e T h ird C ircu it rejec te d th e “tra n sition fro m n o n sc h o o l l ife t o sc h ool l i fe” as a pret ext, ci t i n g di st ri ctcourtf i n di n gs abou ta l ack of pe da go gi c als upp o r ta nd ahi s t o r y o f l e gi s l at ive e f

f o r t s t o “ r e t ur n pr ay e rt o t he p u b l i c sch oo l s. ” 7 8 0 F
. 2 d a t 25 1

– 5 2
. H ere , the re is no pe d a go gical evid en ce to reb u t l eg i slative i n ten t, th ere a re n o relev a n t distri ct cou rt f i n d i n gs on w h i ch to d e fe r , a n dth e r e is n o e v id e n c e o f a s te a d y“p r a y e rin s c h o o ls ” e ffo r t. A l t h ou gh Sen atorW en t w ort h ( an d at l east on e H ou se m em ber) ci t ed “l ack of prayer i n sc h ool s” i n l am en t i n g vari ou s soci et al i l l s, h e repeatedl y em ph asi zedN o. 08- 10092

19 t h at “f or purp oses of

l egi sl ative i n t en t , t h i s i s not a pray er bi l l
. ” Th e H ou se spon sors al so em ph asi zed the non

- rel i gi ou s pu rposes of t h e l aw ev en m ore consi st en t l y. O n the w h ol e, the deb ates sugg esta hi st ory m ore s i m i l ar t o Bo wn and Bro wn , w h e r e s e v e r a l re a s o n s , in c lu d in gth e re tu r nto pra ye rb u t a ls o p u r e ly
s e c ul aro ne s s uc h a s a re f l e c t ive m o m e nt , w e r e g ive n i n s upp o r to f t he pe r t i ne nt le g i s la tio n a n d p a s s e d co n s tit u tio n a l s c r u tin y . S e eB r o wn , 258 F. 3d at277; Bo wn , 1 12 F
. 3d at 147 1. “ Indeed , t h e W allace Cour t no t e d t hat e ve n t ho ugh a st atute i s ‘ m ot ivated i n part by a rel i gi ou s p u rpose’itm ay st i l lsat i sf y t h e L em on test. ” Bro wn , 258 F. 3d at277 ( quot i ng W allace , 4 7 2 U. S

. a t5 6 )

. E v e n i f s o me l egi sl at or s had re l i giou s m ot ives i n pro m ot i ng t hi s l egi sl at i on, t her e a r e c l ear secul ar l egi sl ative pu rposes present. Th i s i s un l i ke W allace or May , w h ere t h ere w e r e re a llyn o s e c u la rp u r p o s e s a t a ll. Fi nal l y, unl i ke Al a b a m a ’ s “c a m p a i g no f d e f i anc e ” i n W

allace , as th e F ou rth Ci r c ui tdes c r ibe d i ti n Bro wn , 258 F
. 3d at 279 , an d N ew Jersey’ s hi st ory “ of ot h er l e s s fac i al l y ne ut r ale f f o r t s t o r e t ur n pr ay e rt o t he pub l i c s c hool s” i n May , 780 F. 2d at252, the ef

f or ti n T exas w as an i so l at ed o ne t o c onf or m t o c urr entl aw , as t he l e gi s l at ur e s aw i t
. The l e gi s l at ive hi s t o r y r e pe ated l y i ndi c at e s t hatt he
s ta tu te a t h a n d w a s th e d ir e c t p r o d u c t o f th e s u c c e s s o f th e V ir g in ia s ta tu te in Bro wn . I n addi ng t he w or d “ pra y, ” Senat orW ent w or t h co nce ded t ha t he w as am e nd i nge x i s t i ngs t a t e l a w vi s - a - v i s s c ho o lp r a y e r ; y e t , i n d o i ngs o , h e was t r yi ng t o a f

f or d an “ oppor t un i ty” to Texas st udent s ot her w i se now enj oye d by t ho s e i n Vi r gi ni a. W he t he r t hi s bi l l w as ne e de d i s de ba t ab l e , b utno t hi ng i n t he
r e c o r d ca n re b u t t h e tim in go rp u r p o s e o f S e n a to rW e n tw o r th ’ s b ill m a r k in git
as o ne t hatr e s pe c t s , r at he rt han c hal l e nge s , e xi s t i ng c o ns t i t ut i o nall aw. The
s e nat o r and hi s H o us e c o l l e ag ue s r e pe at e dl y e m pha s i z e d t he i m po r t ance of
c o nf o r m i ng t he b i l lt o Supr e m e Cour t pr e c e de nt

— har dl y e vi de nc e o f a r e l i gi o us pu rpose.N o. 08- 10092

20 W h i l e th ere w ere referen ces b y so m e legisl a tors to r e tu r n i n g p ra ye r to
s c ho o l s , t he r e l i gi o us m o t ive s o f s o m e l e gi s l at o r s s ho ul d no tde f l e c tus f r o m t he
s e c ul arpur po s e s c o nt ai ne d i n t he pl ai n t e xtof § 2 5. 08 2( d) a nd e s po us e d b y t he l e gi s l at ur e t o j us t i f

y t he 200 3 A m e ndm e nt s . O urr e vi e w he r e i s de fe r e nt i al , a nd i ti s very c l ear t h at the T exas l egi sl ature h ad a p l au sibl e secu l ar p u rpose t o pass th ese A m en d m en ts. A s a re su l t, the y su rv ive the f i rst L em on pr ong. 2
. Pri m ary Ef

f ect T h e C rofts arg u e th a t th e prim a ry effect of t h e 2 0 0 3 A m en d m en ts w a s to “a d v a n c e ce r ta i n fo r m s o f m a in s tr e a m P r o te s ta n t C h r is tia n re lig io n , w h ile i nhibi t i ng l e s s m ai ns t r e am r e l i gi o ns . ” The i rar gum e nti s a l s o t hatb y i nc l udi ng

“ pray , ” t h e st ate has given rel i gi ou s peopl e a ben ef i tbe ca u se t h ey n eed n ot
consu l ta l aw yer t o kn ow t h at t h ei r c h il d re n c an pray d u ri n g t h e m om en tof
s i l e n c e w h ile n o n -r e lig io u s p e o p le m u s t c o n s u lt a la w y e rto fin do u t t h a t t h e ir
c hi l dr e n m ay“ no tpr ay” dur i ng t he s am e pe r i o d. A gai n, t he C r of

t s f oc us v er y nar r ow l y o n t he addi t i on o f t he w or d “ pra y”
w h i l e ign orin g a l lof th e oth er su b stan tive ch a n ge s to the statu te. T h e ir argu m en tt h at parents m u st consu l t a l aw yer t o determ i n e t h at th ei r c h i l dren
m a y“n o t p r a y” is m is g u id e d g i v e n t h e fa c t t h a t t h e 2 0 0 3 A m e n d m e n ts cle a r ly st ate t h at c h i l dren m ay p u rsue “ anyot h er s i l en ta ct ivi t y” du ri n g t h e m om en tof
s ile n c e . T EX . E DUC
. C ODE § 2 5. 08 2( d) ( e m pha s i s a dde d)

. “ N o tpr aying” i s t hus
c o v e r e d b yth e ca tc h a ll p r o v is io n a d d e db yth e 2 0 0 3 A m e n d m e n ts
. Ther e i s no t hi ng i n t he r e c o r d t o s ugg e s tt hatt he p ri m ar y e f fe c to f t he 2 0 0 3 A m e n d m e n ts is to a d v a n c e P r o te s ta n t C h r is tia n ity
. T h e s ta tu te is fa c ia lly
n eu t ralbetw een rel i gi ou s and non - rel i gi ou s activi t i es t h at s t u den t s c an choose to en ga ge i n d u ri n g t h e m om en t o f s ile n c e . S e eB r o wn , 258 F
. 3d at 277
. N or do e s t he w o r d “ pr ay” by i t s e l f c o nno t e an e ndo r s e m e nt o f P rot e s t ant C h r is tia n ity
.N o. 08- 10092

21 A s Justi ce O ’ C on n or s t ated i n her W allacecon cu rren ce: “I t is dif fi cu l t t o di s c ern a ser i o us t hr e att o r e l i gi o us l ibe r t y f r o m a r o o m o f

s i l e nt , t ho ugh t f

ul sch oo l ch i l d ren . ” W

allace , 4 72 U
. S. a t7 3. N o ne o f t he c o ur t s e xa m i ni ng m o m e nt of si l en ce s t atutes h ave f ou n d that t h e pri m ar y e ffec t h as been t o adv an ce or in h ib it r e lig io n , a n d th e C r o fts p o in t t o n o c a s e l a w th a t s u p p o r ts th e ir
con ten t i ons . I nst ead, t he pr i m ar y e f fec tof t he 2003 A m endm ent s se em s t o b e t he s am e a s t he l e gi s l at ive pur po s e s s ho w n a bo ve : f o s t e r i ng pa t r i o t i s m a nd
m an d a tin ga m om en tof qu i etref

l ect i on . E speci al l y w h en an al yzi n g t h ese A m en dm en t s i n a faci alch al l en ge, w e shou l d n otal l ow specul ative fears t o cr eep in to o u ra n a ly s is
. S e e B r o wn , 258 F. 3da t2 77 –7 8. The 2 00 3 Am e ndm e nt s do
no tha ve t he pr i m ar y e f fe c to f a dv anc i ng r e l i gi o n, a nd s o s ur vive t he s e c o nd Le m o n pro ng. N o rdo a r gum e nt s t hatt he 2 00 3 Am e ndm e n t s di s c r i m i nat e a m o ng rel i gi ou s s ect s hav e m eri t
. Th e C rof t s c l ai m t h at ot h er rel i gi ou s sect s m ay n eed t o m ak e noi se orm ot i on in o rder t o pray, an d so t h e A m en dm en t s al l ow C h ri st i an prayer w h i l e not al l ow i n g ot h er f orm s of pray er. B u t as t h e May court f ou n d, t h i s “i s a n on sequit u r. Th e st atute s i m pl y does n otadd ress t h e probl em of accom m oda t i n g t h e bel i efs of t h ose w h ose pray e r m u stbe oralor ot h erw i se sel f ex pressive. U n dou btedl y t h e sc h oolenv i ronm en trequi res l i m i t ati on up on th e tim e , p la c e , a n d m a n n e ro f s u c h s e lf e x p r e s s io n , e v e n w h e n it is re lig io u s ly
m o tiv a te d .” 7 8 0 F .2d a t 2 4 8
. T h e sta tu te p ro v id e s fo r a m in u t e of si lence and al l ow s anyn o n -d isru ptive silen t ac t ivi t y. Thi s r equi r em entt hatt he ac t ivi t y, i n cl u di n g possibl e prayer, be si l en tdoes not di scr i m i n ate am on g rel i gi ou s s ect s. 3
. Exc e s s i v eEnt ang le m e nt The Cro f

t s a r gue t hatt he 200 3 A m e ndm e nt s ca us e ex c e s s ive g o ve r nm e nt
en t an gl em en t w ith re li g ion b yre q u irin gth a t te a ch e rs re g u la te stu d e n t b e h a v i or to en su re sil en ce a n d n o d i strac ti on s d u ri n g th e m om en t of si l en ce. T h e C rofts
a r g u e th a t t h is is a d e le g a tio n o f le g is la tiv e p o w e rto te a c h e r s .N o. 08- 10092

22 A gai n, no c our thas eve racc ept ed— es pec i al l y o n a fac i alc hal l enge— t hat
a m o m e nto f

s i l e nc e s t at ut e i s e xc e s s ive g o ve r nm e nte nt ang l e m e ntw i t h r e l i gi o n. Te a c h e r s a r e s i m p lye n f o r c i n gs i l e n c e a n dp r e v e n t i n gc l a s s r o o m d i s t r a c t i o n s . As t h e Bow n c o u r t e x p la in e d : T h e factt h at a t e a ch e r m u st st op a studen tw h o prays au dibl y or ot h erw i se m ak es noise d u ri n g t h e m om en tof qu i etref

l ect i on does no tr e s ul ti n e xc e s s ive g o ve r nm e nte nt angl e m e ntw i t h r e l i gi o n. T h ere are m an y t i m es du ri n g an y given sc h oold ay w h en t each ers t e l lt he i rs t ude nt s t o b e q ui e ta nd when aud ibl e ac t ivi t y o f a ny ki nd is n o t p e r m itt e d . T h e fa c t t h a t t h is p a r tic u la rp e r io do f s ile n c e is m an da t ed st atew i de d oes not creat e entan gl em en tprobl em s. 112 F
. 3d at 147 4. D el egati n g t h i s r espon sibi l i t y t o t each ers i s n ota del egati on of l eg i slative po w ers, as th e legisl a tu re w ou l dn ot n o r m a l l y h a ve the po w er to
en f orce di sci pl i n e i n cl assroom s. R ather, i ti s di rect i on t o t h e executive bran ch t o e n f o r c e t h e l a w. The Cro f

t s r ai s e t he po s s ibi l i t y t hatt e ac he r s m ayc o nf i s c at e pr ay e rb e ad s as di st ract i n g or prohibi tcer t ai n rel i gi ou s ornon - rel i gi ou s act ivi t i es. A l lof t h ese s pe c u l a t iv e p o s s ib i l i t i e s m a y b e fe r t i l e g r o u n d f o r a s - a p p l i e d c h a l l e n g e s t o t he st at ut e if

t hey oc c ur. B utw e shoul d notengag e i n suc h spe c ul at i on o n a fac i al
rev i ew of th e law
. T h e statu te h ere is n eu tral an dsi m p l y in stru cts teach ers to
m a i n tain d i scipli n e i n th eir cl a ssro om s d u ri n g t h e m om en t of sil en ce. T h is is not , on i t s fac e, an ex c es sive ent angl em entw i t h re l i gi on, and s o t he 2003 Am e ndm e nt s s ur vive t he t hi r d L em on pr ong. CO NC L US I ON The Cro f

t s ha ve s t and i ng t o c hall e nge t he 2 00 3 Am e ndm e n t s. Butt he Am e ndm e nt s a r e c o ns t i t ut i o nala nd s at i s f y al lt hr e e pr o ngs o f t h e L em on ana l ys i s. T h ere i s no e xc e s s ive e nt ang l e m e nt , a nd t he pr i m ar y e f fe c to f t he Am e ndm e nt s i s no tt o a dv anc e r e l i gi o n. The m o s tdi f f i c ul tpr o ng— f

o rt hi s a nd f or m om en tof

si l en ce st atutes gen eral l y— i s l egi sl ative pu rpose. B u tour revi ew of l eg i slative h i storyi s d eferen ti a l , an dsu ch de fe r en ce lead s to an ad eq u a teN o. 08- 10092

23 se c ul arpurpo se i n t hi s c as e. W hi l e w e c annotal l ow a “ sham ” l egi sl at ive purpos e, w e s houl d ge ner al l y de fert o t he s t at ed l egi sl at ive i nt ent
. H er e, t hat i nt e nt w as t o pr o m o t e pa t r i o t i s m a nd a l l o w f o ra m o m e nto f

q ui e tc o nt e m pl at i o n. Th es e a r e v al i d s ec ul arpurpo se s, and ar e no tout w ei ghed by l i m i t ed l egi sl at ive hi s t o r y s ho w i ng t hats o m e l e gi s l at o r s m ayha ve b e e n m o t iva t e d b y r e l i gi o n. B ecau se t h e 200 3 A m e n d m e n t s s u rvive t h e L em on t es t , t hey ar e no tan
u n consti t u t i on alest abli shm en tof r e li gi o n, a n d the j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ctcourt i s A F F I RMED.