United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1626/1713

___________

Steve Warnock, *

*

Appellee/Cross Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Charles Archer, Individually *

and as Superintendent; Charles Eads, *

Individually and as Principal; Gene *

Baldwin, Individually and as School *

Board President; David Smith, *

Individually and as member of the * Appeals from the United States

Board of Directors of the DeValls * District Court for the

Bluff, Arkansas Public School District * Eastern District of Arkansas.

and the DeValls Bluff Public School *

District; L. C. Holloway, Individually * [PUBLISHED]

and as member of the Board of *

Directors of the DeValls Bluff, Arkansas*

Public School District and the DeValls *

Bluff Public School District; Verna *

Gaddy, Individually and as member of *

the Board of Directors of the DeValls *

Bluff, Arkansas Public School District *

and the DeValls Bluff Public School *

District; Melvin Hula, Individually and *

as member of the Board of Directors of *

the DeValls Bluff, Arkansas Public *

School District and the DeValls *

Bluff Public School District; Vera *

Doepel, Individually and as member of *

the Board of Directors of the DeValls *

Bluff, Arkansas Public School District *
1

 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

and the DeValls Bluff Public School *

District; Emma Gray, Individually and *

as member of the Board of Directors of *

the DeValls Bluff, Arkansas Public *

School District and the DeValls Bluff *

Public School District; DeValls Bluff *

Public School District, *

*

 Appellants/Cross Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 9, 2006

 Filed: April 4, 2006 (corrected 4/7/06)

___________

Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The DeValls Bluff School District, along with its employees and directors, are

subject to an injunction that prohibits them from orchestrating or supervising prayers

at school graduation or baccalaureate ceremonies. They appeal the order of the district

court1

 holding them in contempt of that injunction. Steve Warnock cross-appeals,

contending that the district court's order failed to impose sufficient sanctions on the

defendants for the contempt. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Mr. Warnock previously brought a lawsuit against the defendants, challenging

various practices of the DeValls Bluff School District on establishment-clause

grounds. Ruling, in part, in Mr. Warnock's favor, the district court enjoined the

defendants from, inter alia, "orchestrating or supervising or reciting prayers or other
-3-

religious messages at graduation and baccalaureate ceremonies." Although the

defendants unsuccessfully appealed other aspects of the district court's injunction, see

Warnock v. Archer, 380 F.3d 1076, 1079 (8th Cir. 2004), they did not challenge its

restrictions on graduation and baccalaureate ceremonies in that appeal, id. at 1079 n.1.

While that appeal was pending, Mr. Warnock attended a baccalaureate ceremony at

the DeValls Bluff High School auditorium that included an invocation and a

benediction by local ministers. He then filed a motion asking the district court to find

the defendants in contempt of the injunction. The district court granted the motion,

concluding that school district employees had planned and supervised the

baccalaureate ceremony at which the prayers were offered. 

We review a district court's civil contempt order for an abuse of discretion,

while reviewing the factual findings underlying that decision for clear error. Jake's,

Ltd. v. City of Coates, 356 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2004). After considering its wellreasoned opinion, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

holding the defendants in contempt. The defendants contend that the baccalaureate

service was a student-organized event, but there was ample evidence on the record to

demonstrate that school employees were involved with almost every aspect of the

service's preparation. The court heard evidence that the school district paid two

school employees to act as senior class sponsors: These sponsors met with DeValls

Bluff seniors during school hours, where they supervised and advised on the planning

of the baccalaureate service. It was these school employees who designed the

service's program, typed it up, and copied it using school resources. And it was those

same school employees who handed out the programs at the baccalaureate service.

Faced with such facts, the district court was justified in concluding that the school

district helped to "produce a service that continued the tradition of having local clergy

offer prayers and religious messages" and in finding the defendants in contempt.

Mr. Warnock asks us to increase the severity of the sanctions that the district

court imposed. As we have already noted, we will disturb the contempt order only if
-4-

it resulted from an abuse of discretion. Although the district court did not impose any

monetary sanctions, it warned that further violations might well entail more severe

consequences. The district court is in a better position than we to judge what

sanctions are necessary to achieve compliance, and we discern no abuse of discretion

here. We therefore decline the invitation to modify its order.

Affirmed.

______________________________