Source: https://www.leagle.com/decision/1994140027f3d137311218
Timestamp: 2017-08-20 11:50:37
Document Index: 374552488

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 8']

BROWN v. WOODLAND JOINT U | 27 F.3d 1373 (1994) | Leagle.com
27 F.3d 1373 (1994)
BROWN v. WOODLAND JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST.
Douglas E. BROWN; Katherine E. Brown, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WOODLAND JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee, Woodland Parents Group, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee.
Douglas E. Brown and Katherine E. Brown, parents of two students formerly enrolled in the Woodland Joint Unified School District (the "School District"), seek injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the School District had violated their children's rights under the United States and California Constitutions. The Browns and their children are part of the Christian Assembly of God denomination.
The Browns concede that the author-editors of Impressions chose the Challenged Selections for a secular purpose and that the School District adopted Impressions for a secular purpose. They also do not assert that any School District teachers are using the Challenged Selections for the purpose of advancing witchcraft. Use of the Challenged Selections thus does not violate the purpose prong of the Lemon test.
The Browns contend that the use of the Challenged Selections violates the second prong of the Lemon test, which bars any government practice that has the "primary" effect of advancing or disapproving of religion, even if that effect is not intended. The concept of a "primary" effect encompasses even nominally "secondary" effects of government action that directly and immediately advance, or disapprove of, religion. Committee for Public Educ. & Relig. Lib. v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 783 n. 39, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2971, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973). A government practice has the effect of impermissibly advancing or disapproving of religion if it is "sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denominations as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices." School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 390, 105 S.Ct. 3216, 3226, 87 L.Ed.2d 267 (1985). The relevant inquiry thus "is whether the government's action actually conveys a message of endorsement of religion in general or of a particular religion." Kreisner v. City of San Diego, 1 F.3d 775, 783 (9th Cir.1993) (internal quotations omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 690, 126 L.Ed.2d 657 (1994).
We agree with the district court that the primary effect of a challenged practice generally is considered under the reasonable observer standard. Kreisner, 1 F.3d at 784. "This hypothetical observer is informed as well as reasonable; we assume that he or she is familiar with the history of the government practice at issue." Id. However, these assumptions are less valid for elementary school children, who are less informed, more impressionable and more subject to peer pressure than average adults. See Board of Educ. of Westside Comm. Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250, 110 S.Ct. 2356, 2371-72, 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990) (plurality portion of opinion); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 584, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 2577-78, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987); Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 385, 105 S.Ct. 3216, 3223, 87 L.Ed.2d 267 (1985); Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047, 1057-58 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 3025, 120 L.Ed.2d 896 (1992). Courts thus have considered the more vulnerable nature of school-age children when analyzing the primary effect of state actions in the elementary school environment.3
The Browns contend that this perspective demands a subjective standard for determining whether a challenged practice appears to children as endorsing or disapproving of a religion. We disagree. Rather than consider what effect a challenged government practice has had on a particular public school student, the Supreme Court and this circuit consistently have applied an objective standard for public school Establishment Clause inquiries. See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 2658, 2661, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992); Roberts, 921 F.2d at 1057. Use of this standard makes good sense. "People may take offense at all manner of religious as well as nonreligious messages." Weisman, ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2661. If an Establishment Clause violation arose each time a student believed that a school practice either advanced or disapproved of a religion, school curricula would be reduced to the lowest common denominator, permitting each student to become a "curriculum review committee" unto himself or herself. The Supreme Court's opinion in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), involving a Free Exercise Clause challenge to a law criminalizing the use of peyote, makes clear that this result is improper:
The government's ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector's spiritual development. To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is compelling-permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, to become a law unto himself — contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.
The Browns assert that a message of endorsement is communicated because the Challenged Selections engage children in witchcraft rituals and cause them to pretend that they are witchcraft practitioners.5 The closest case in this circuit to the instant controversy is Grove v. Mead School District No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528 (9th Cir.1985). In Grove, the plaintiffs alleged that a book entitled The Learning Tree, which was part of the defendant school's sophomore curriculum, advanced the religion of secular humanism in violation of the federal Establishment Clause. The court rejected their claim. Observing that the "Supreme Court has stated clearly that literary or historic study of the Bible is not prohibited religious activity," the court concluded that the reading of the book was "not a ritual" but a study of the "expectations and orientations of Black Americans." Id. at 1534. It further concluded that the book was "included in a group of religiously neutral books in a review of English literature, as a comment on an American subculture." Id.
To the extent that the Challenged Selections involve no more than merely reading, discussing or contemplating witches, their behavior, or witchcraft, they fall squarely within the holding of Grove. See Grove, 753 F.2d at 1540 (Canby, J. concurring) ("Luther's `Ninety-Nine Theses' are hardly balanced or objective, yet their pronounced and even vehement bias does not prevent their study in a history class' exploration of the Protestant Reformation, nor is Protestantism itself `advanced' thereby."). Such selections thus are not reasonably viewed as communicating a message of endorsement. Some of the Challenged Selections, however, involve student participation that is more active than this conduct. These Challenged Selections require children to role-play sorcerers and witches and to cast spells.
Grove itself recognizes that active participation in "ritual" poses a greater risk of violating the Establishment Clause than does merely reading, discussing or thinking about religious texts. This view was borne out in Lee v. Weisman, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 where the plaintiff challenged a public school's use of an invited cleric to offer a prayer during its graduation ceremony. Although students had the option of standing silently as the prayer was delivered, the Supreme Court determined that standing silently was not a realistic option because of peer pressure to participate. The Court concluded that the use of an invited cleric to lead a prayer at graduation violated the Establishment Clause, observing that "[t]he injury caused by the government's action ... is that the State, in a school setting, in effect required participation in a religious exercise.... No holding by this Court suggests that a school can persuade or compel a student to participate in a religious exercise." Id. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2659-61; see also Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir.1979) (student participation in ceremony offering to deities as part of regularly scheduled public school course violated Establishment Clause). Grove, Weisman, and Malnak indicate that student participation in school-sponsored religious ritual can have the primary effect of endorsing religion.6
The Browns assert that the context in which the Challenged Selections appear cannot neutralize their religious content. They argue that context is irrelevant where a person is required to participate in a religious ritual. See Weisman, ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2659. This position is untenable, however, because the Challenged Selections are not formal religious rituals; at best, the Browns can prove only that children may perceive them as such. The context in which Challenged Selections exist is relevant to determining whether children will have such a perception.
We agree with the district court's treatment of this evidence. Testimony by expert witnesses does not raise a genuine issue of material fact where it is of little use in determining whether a practice is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 594-96, 107 S.Ct. at 2583-84. The Supreme Court generally has not relied on expert testimony to determine whether a school practice reasonably appears to endorse religion. See, e.g., Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2462, 125 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). Instead of engaging in a "battle of the experts" in deciding Establishment Clause cases, cf. Aguillard, 482 U.S. at 596, 107 S.Ct. at 2584, courts have relied upon assumptions about a "hypothetical observer" (in this case a hypothetical child) to determine whether a government action conveys an endorsement of religion. Kreisner, 1 F.3d at 784. The expert testimony offered by the Browns has little relevance to this inquiry.
These hypothetical examples are distinguishable from the Challenged Selections. Baptism, communion, and the rosary are "overt religious exercises," performed for sectarian purposes. See Weisman, ___ U.S. at ___, ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2656, 2661. Mimicry of them by public school children thus more likely, though perhaps not necessarily, see supra n. 6, would give the appearance of an endorsement of religion. In contrast, the activities in the Challenged Selections are fantasy activities, drawn from a secular source and used for a secular purpose, that happen to resemble religious practices. They are not "overt religious exercises" that raise Establishment Clause concerns. Consequently, we do not believe that affirmance of the district court's judgment will lead to disparate adverse treatment of popular religions.
"Although political divisiveness has been considered in establishment clause cases, it has never been relied upon as an independent ground for holding a government practice unconstitutional." Cammack v. Waihee, 932 F.2d 765, 781 (9th Cir.1991) (internal citations and quotations omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 3027, 120 L.Ed.2d 898 (1992); L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 14-11, at 1229-30 (1988). Because the Browns lack any other basis for their Establishment Clause claim, any purported political divisiveness caused by use of the Impressions series is insufficient to create an appearance of endorsement or disapproval of religion.
Further, the district court concluded that the political divisiveness doctrine did not apply because the use of the Impressions curriculum did not involve a direct financial subsidy by the government to a religious church-sponsored school. We agree with the district court. The political divisiveness doctrine generally is applied only in cases involving direct government subsidies to sectarian institutions. See L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 14-11, at 1229. The doctrine also has been applied recently in cases in which the government intentionally involved itself in overt, fundamental religious exercises or issues. See, e.g., Weisman, ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2655-56 (school's selection of clergy to conduct graduation prayer created significant risk of divisiveness); see also Feminist Women's Health Center v. Philibosian, 157 Cal.App.3d 1076, 203 Cal.Rptr. 918, 926 (Cal.App.1984) (city's giving of aborted fetuses to religious groups for mock burial would have aggravated "one of the most emotionally explosive issues in today's firmament"), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052, 105 S.Ct. 1752, 84 L.Ed.2d 816 (1985). Unlike those cases, the School District's use of the Challenged Selections is not an intentional effort to aid overtly religious exercises and issues. The district court's decision not to apply the political divisiveness doctrine thus was proper.
Abstention under Pullman is appropriate where (1) the state's constitution contains a provision unlike any in the federal Constitution and (2) state court construction of an unclear provision might make federal ruling unnecessary. Ellis, 990 F.2d at 1522. Both of these conditions are present for the Browns' claims under the No Preference Clause, article XVI, section 5, and article IX, section 8 of the California Constitution. Further, although California's Establishment Clause is nearly identical to the federal Establishment Clause, California courts have indicated that the state version is not limited by interpretations of its federal antecedent. Sands v. Morongo Unif. Sch. Dist., 53 Cal.3d 863, 281 Cal.Rptr. 34, 45, 809 P.2d 809 (Cal. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 3026, 120 L.Ed.2d 897 (1992).
The Establishment Clause of the California Constitution states that "[t]he Legislature shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." Cal. Const. art. I, § 4. As under the federal Establishment Clause, the California Establishment Clause generally prohibits public schools from requiring their students to engage in religious ritual. Sands, 281 Cal.Rptr. at 38-42, 809 P.2d at 812-18. No California decision suggests, however, that the California Establishment Clause goes beyond its federal counterpart to prohibit school exercises that coincidentally resemble religious rituals. We thus believe that, if confronted with this question, California courts would uphold the use of the Challenged Selections from state constitutional attack.
California's No Preference Clause reads: "Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed." Cal. Const. art. I, § 4. California courts have interpreted the No Preference Clause to require that the government neither prefer one religion over another nor appear to act preferentially. Sands, 281 Cal. Rptr. at 45, 809 P.2d at 820.
Article XVI, section 5 of the California Constitution states that "[n]either the Legislature, nor any ... school district, ... shall ever ... pay from any public fund whatever, or grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose." Cal. Const. art. XVI, § 5. A two-part test determines whether governmental aid violated this provision: "We consider first whether the aid is direct or indirect, and second whether the nature of the aid is substantial or incidental." Sands, 281 Cal.Rptr. at 66, 809 P.2d at 841 (Mosk, J., concurring).
Article IX, section 8 of the California Constitution provides that no "sectarian or denominational doctrine [shall] be taught, or instruction thereon be permitted, directly or indirectly, in any of the common schools of this State." Cal. Const. art. IX, § 8. The Challenged Selections were chosen for reasons unrelated to the religion of witchcraft, and the use of the Challenged Selections does not appear to endorse religion. The use of exercises that coincidentally resemble practices of witchcraft therefore does not teach the religion of witchcraft even indirectly. There is no violation of article IX, section 8.
1. Some of the literary selections in Impressions include references to diverse religious traditions, including Christianity. These selections are used to inspire a variety of pedagogical activities, including singing poems, envisioning the creation of the world, and determining students' zodiac signs. The Browns do not challenge these selections.
2. Although the School District has argued that the Browns have not demonstrated that the Challenged Selections actually have been used by any particular teacher, the School District has authorized teachers to use any portion of Impressions appropriate to the grade level that they teach and has not forbidden teachers from using the Challenged Selections.
3. The Supreme Court's decision in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993), is not to the contrary. In that case, the Court held a church's access to school premises after school hours to show a religious oriented film on family values and child-rearing would not violate the federal Establishment Clause. The Court observed that there was "no realistic danger that the community would think that the District was endorsing religion or any particular creed." Id. at ___, 113 S.Ct. at 2148. The Court's apparent failure to consider the issue from the perspective of school-age children was appropriate in that case because the church group was on school premises after school hours, when children presumably would be gone.
4. This conclusion is consistent with the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in a similar case involving an Establishment Clause challenge to the Impressions series. In Fleischfresser v. Directors of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 686, 689 n. 9 (7th Cir.1994), the court rejected the "impressionable child" standard and, instead, gave "heightened" scrutiny to any possible religious endorsement by elementary school curricula.
5. Although the School District has argued that the Browns' children could have "opted out" of participation in any of the Challenged Selections, it conceded during oral argument that the opportunity to opt out does not cure any potential constitutional violation. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 60 n. 51, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 2491-92 n. 51, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984).
6. Some student participatory activity involving school-sponsored ritual may be permissible even under Grove and Weisman where the activity is used for secular pedagogical purposes. For example, having children act out a ceremonial American Indian dance for the purpose of exploring and learning about American Indian culture may be permissible even if the dance was religious ritual. Similarly, a reenactment of the Last Supper or a Passover dinner might be permissible if presented for historical or cultural purposes. However, because we conclude that the Challenged Selections are not religious rituals, we need not determine the conditions under which religious rituals can be employed in a public school curriculum for these purposes.
7. The Browns seek to distinguish McGowan because it was decided as a "purpose" case rather than a "primary effect" case. The text quoted above indicates that this narrow reading of McGowan is incorrect. Further, this argument ignores one of McGowan's companion cases, Two Guys From Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley, 366 U.S. 582, 81 S.Ct. 1135, 6 L.Ed.2d 551 (1960), which held that neither a blue law's "purpose or effect is religious." Id. at 598, 81 S.Ct. at 1143 (italics added).