Opinion ID: 770692
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cole's Invocation

Text: 27 Applying these principles to the present case, it is clear the District's refusal to allow Cole to deliver a sectarian invocation as part of the graduation ceremony was necessary to avoid an Establishment Clause violation. The invocation would not have been private speech, because the District authorized an invocation as part of the graduation ceremony held on District property, allowed only a student selected by a vote of his classmates to give an invocation and no doubt would have used a microphone or public address system to amplify the invocation to the audience at the graduation ceremony. See Santa Fe, 120 S. Ct. at 2275-78; see also Collins v. Chandler Unified Sch. Dist., 644 F.2d 759, 760-62 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that district policy under which principal and district superintendent gave student council permission to select a student to open school assemblies with prayer constituted impermissible government sponsorship of religious activity under the Establishment Clause). In addition, as the Court noted in Santa Fe, an invocation policy by its very terms appears to reflect an impermissible state purpose to encourage a religious message. 8 120 S. Ct. at 2277 (concluding that term invocation is a term that primarily describes an appeal for divine assistance). Furthermore, Cole's sectarian invocation would have caused a more serious Establishment Clause violation than in Santa Fe because there the invocation was required to be nonsectarian and non-proselytizing. Id. at 2273 n.6; Lee, 505 U.S. at 589 (noting that a nonsectarian prayer is more acceptable than one which, for example, makes explicit reference to the God of Israel, or to Jesus Christ); County of Allegheny v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 603 (The legislative prayers involved in Marsh did not violate this principle [against government affiliation with a particular religious sect ] because the particular chaplain had `removed all references to Christ.'  (quoting Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 793 n.14 (1985))); Doe v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. , 168 F.3d 806, 809, 815 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that a graduation policy that does not limit speakers to nonsectarian, non-proselytizing speech violates the Establishment Clause), aff'd on other grounds, 120 S. Ct. 2266 (2000). 28