Opinion ID: 805319
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Religious Endorsement

Text: Establishment Clause jurisprudence has long guarded against government conduct that has the effect of promoting religious teachings in school settings, and the case law has evinced special concern with the receptivity of schoolchildren to endorsed religious messages. In Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (per curiam), for instance, the Supreme Court barred enforcement of a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public school classroom within the state. The Court’s brief discussion con- 15 The Does do not argue that the District had a non-secular purpose in choosing the Elmbrook Church for its graduation ceremonies; thus, we need not consider the graduation ceremonies under Lemon’s secular purpose prong. The Does do argue that the District acted unconstitutionally by conferring control over the physical setting of a public school event, directing tax funds to support the propagation of religion, and creating religious divisiveness. Since we conclude that the District acted unconstitutionally on other grounds, we need not address these arguments, nor must we consider the District’s actions under Lemon’s entanglement prong. No. 10-2922 23 cluded that the statute was in violation of Lemon’s first prong, whether the legislation had a secular purpose. Id. at 41 (concluding that the purpose for posting the commandments was “plainly religious in nature”). In reaching that conclusion, the Court entered into a discussion of Lemon’s second prong, whether the primary effect of government conduct advances or inhibits religion. The Court reasoned that “[i]f the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the school children to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the commandments.” Id. at 42. We perceive essentially the same problem in the circumstances of this case. Displaying religious iconography and distributing religious literature in a classroom setting raises constitutional objections because the practice may do more than provide public school students with knowledge of Christian tenets, an obviously permissible aim of a broader curriculum. E.g., Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 608 (1987) (Powell, J., concurring). The concern is that religious displays in the classroom tend to promote religious beliefs, and students might feel pressure to adopt them. Such concern was front and center in Stone and apparent to one degree or another in the Supreme Court’s school prayer cases. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (Alabama law authorizing a moment of silence for meditation or voluntary prayer held unconstitutional); Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp., Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) (opening exercises featuring Bible recitation and reading of Lord’s prayer held unconstitutional); 24 No. 10-2922 Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (prescribed daily prayer held unconstitutional). The same problem attends pervasive displays of iconography and proselytizing material at a public secondary school graduation. In this case, high school students and their younger siblings were exposed to graduation ceremonies that put a spiritual capstone on an otherwise-secular education. Literally and figuratively towering over the graduation proceedings in the church’s sanctuary space was a 15- to 20-foot tall Latin cross, the preeminent symbol of Christianity. That symbol “carries deeply significant meaning for those who adhere to the Christian faith.” Salazar v. Buono 130 S. Ct. 1803, 1836 n.8 (2010) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Moreover, it is a symbol that invites veneration by adherents. E.g., 2 St. Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA T HEOLOGICA, q. 25, art. 3 at 2157 (Benzinger Bros., 1947). The cross, like many symbols, is “pregnant with expressive content.” See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 405 (1989). It acts as a “short cut from mind to mind,” West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 632 (1943), for adherents who draw strength from it and for those who do not ascribe to Christian beliefs. Although the setting in which a symbol is displayed can shape its message, cf. Buono, 130 S. Ct. at 1811 (plurality opinion) (stating that the purpose and intent of a Latin cross placed on an outcropping in the desert was “to honor American soldiers who fell in World War I”), there is no doubt that a sectarian message is conveyed by a cross prominently displayed in a house of worship. See also McCreary Cnty., 545 U.S. at 868 (stressing the importance of the context in which a “conNo. 10-2922 25 tested object appears”) (quoting Cnty. of Allegheny v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 595 (1989) (opinion of Blackmun, J.)); Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 701 (2005) (Breyer, J., concurring) (discussing contexts in which Ten Commandments displays might appear). What is more, Elmbrook Church’s sizeable cross was not the only vehicle for conveying religious messages to graduation attendees. Upon passing through the exterior doors of the church, attendees proceeded into a lobby that contained numerous religious materials. Those materials included pamphlets for “middle school” and “high school” ministries. The middle school ministry pamphlet stated, “We are calling students to live and love like Jesus.” As previously noted, a poster on the wall asked, “Hey Jr. Highers! Who Are Your Heroes?” and depicts pop culture icons alongside Jesus Christ. Anticipating the desired answer to the poster’s question, there were several stations indicating that children and students could obtain religious literature tailored to them. Among the banners that had been draped from the lobby’s ceiling during graduation ceremonies was one that read “Children’s Ministry: Leading Children to a Transforming Life in Christ.” Moreover, all 360 degrees of the lobby’s substantial, circular information booth were stocked with religious pamphlets. It was staffed during at least some of the school district’s graduation ceremonies, and the literature was readily accessible even without the staff presence. Returning to the sanctuary itself, which is where the ceremonies took place, the pews were supplied with Bibles, hymnals, 26 No. 10-2922 and additional informational literature. Children in attendance could find “scribble cards” in the pews on which “God’s Little Lambs” could draw. Anyone could partake of the cards soliciting membership in the Church. During at least one graduation ceremony, church members passed out religious literature directly to audience members. Put simply, the environment was pervasively Christian, obviously aimed at nurturing Christian beliefs and gaining new adherents among those who set foot inside the church. Regardless of the purpose of school administrators 1 6 in choosing the location, the sheer religiosity of the space created a likelihood that high school students and their younger siblings would perceive a link between church 16 Each dissent suggests that the secular motivations underlying the District’s choice help save the practice from constitutional rejection, but we believe that this reasoning impermissibly allows Lemon’s purpose inquiry to seep into the analysis of the likely effect of the District’s actions. Lemon’s purpose inquiry has rarely proved dispositive, McCreary Cnty., 545 U.S. at 859, and the favorable features of the church, such as its space and comfort, do not drive the ultimate inquiry into the constitutionality of its use as a high school graduation venue. See Lemon, 403 U.S. at 625 (noting that though taxpayers have been spared considerable expense through the teaching efforts of churches, the “benefits of these schools . . . are not the issue . . . . The sole question is whether state aid to these schools can be squared with the dictates of the Religion Clauses”). No. 10-2922 27 and state.17 That is, the activity conveyed a message of endorsement. High school graduations enjoy an iconic place in American life. Lee, 505 U.S. at 583. Given their centrality, the presence of religious iconography and literature is likely to prove particularly powerful, indicating to everyone that the religious message is favored and to nonadherents that they are outsiders. See Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 9 n.1 (1989) (quoting Wallace, 472 U.S. at 38 (O’Connor, J., concurring)). Here, the church was not just adorned with its own symbols, it was draped in the high schools’ decorations. Banners for the high schools were 17 Contrary to Judge Posner’s and Judge Ripple’s suggestions, we do not view the constitutional violation as having been triggered by the fact that the Does took offense to the graduation setting; rather, their reaction was symptomatic of the violation. Nonadherents of a given faith might reasonably take offense to the government’s endorsement of that faith, since the endorsement sends the message that the nonadherents are “outsiders, not full members of the political community.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O’Connor, J., concurring). If a particular interaction between the government and religion does not constitute endorsement, however, it would be unreasonable for an individual to be offended by the legality of that action. See Books I, 235 F.3d at 320 (Manion, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“It is important to note that while the two plaintiffs involved in this case took offense to the Ten Commandments monument, that is not dispositive because the question is whether an ‘objective’ observer would believe that the display constituted an endorsement of religion.”). 28 No. 10-2922 displayed in the lobby and in the sanctuary, mixed in with the church’s religious decor and literature. In the sanctuary, the high schools’ names were projected onto a large screen adjacent to the Latin cross. Combined with presence of the Church’s pamphlets for its “school” ministries, the setting implied to nonadherents in attendance that the school district placed its imprimatur on Elmbrook Church’s message. See Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 30708 (remarking on the intermixing of the invocation with the accoutrements and hallmarks of high school life and concluding that “the listening audience must perceive the pregame message as a public expression of the views of the majority of the student body delivered with the approval of the school administration”). True, the District did not itself adorn the Church with proselytizing materials, and a reasonable observer would be aware of this fact. But that same observer could reasonably conclude that the District would only choose such a proselytizing environment aimed at spreading religious faith—despite the presence of children, the importance of the graduation ceremony, and, most importantly, the existence of other suitable graduation sites—if the District approved of the Church’s message. The effect of endorsement created by the school district’s practice is not diminished by the explanation that the space was rented and school officials could exercise less control over the church than they could over a schoolhouse. This view provides only superficial appeal. The point appears most cogent with respect to the Church’s cross, although the Church possessed means of covering the symbol. The point appears less No. 10-2922 29 cogent with respect to other aspects of the Church which might have been easily modified to render the space more inviting to others.1 8 This mode of distinguishing, however, would have us look at the issue of control through an exceedingly narrow prism. The critical facts are that school administrators effectively required attendance, because graduations are not truly optional, see Lee, 505 U.S. at 595, and school administrators selected the venue over several other suitable options. See Abington Twp., 374 U.S. at 222 (the neutrality required by the Establishment Clause aims at preventing church and state from acting in concert such that government support is “placed behind the tenets of one or of all orthodoxies”); cf. also Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 395 (1993) (no Establishment Clause concern for church group to use school space for an event where the district created a public forum and the event would have taken place outside of school hours and without school sponsorship). Nor is the effect diminished by the administrators’ mechanism for choosing the graduation site. The record indicates that, following the results of student elections, the principals of the high schools made the ultimate decisions on where to hold graduation. A “student election does nothing to 18 None of this is to suggest that school officials should have exercised a higher degree of control over the Church’s environment, scrubbing it of religious symbols or working to tailor its message to a secular audience. Such a course would have run afoul of Lemon’s excessive entanglement prong. See Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 615-18 (1988). 30 No. 10-2922 protect minority views but rather places the students who hold such views at the mercy of the majority.” Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 304; see also McCreary Cnty., 545 U.S. at 884 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“[W]e do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment.”).