Opinion ID: 222596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Establishment Clause Tests

Text: Having decided that this case is controlled by the principles in Lee v. Weisman , we must next decide whether the Indian River Policy violates the Establishment Clause. [13] In this regard, we confront another threshold question  what Establishment Clause test to apply. In the public school context, the Supreme Court has been inclined to apply the Lemon test. See Grand Rapids Sch. Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 383, 105 S.Ct. 3216, 87 L.Ed.2d 267 (1985) (noting that the Court has particularly relied on Lemon in every case involving the sensitive relationship between government and religion in the education of our children). However, we note that Lemon has been the subject of critical debate in recent years. Am. Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Black Horse Pike Reg'l Bd. of Educ., 84 F.3d 1471, 1484 (3d Cir.1996). [I]ts continuing vitality has been called into question by members of the Supreme Court and by its noticeable absence from the analysis in some of the Court's recent decisions. Id.; see also Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 686, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005) (describing Supreme Court's reluctance to apply Lemon ). Under Lemon, a three-part inquiry determines whether a challenged government action is constitutional under the Establishment Clause: (1) whether the government practice had a secular purpose; (2) whether its principal or primary effect advanced or inhibited religion; and (3) whether it created an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. 403 U.S. at 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105. The endorsement test advocated by Justice O'Connor in her concurrence in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984), has emerged as an alternative. Under the endorsement test, [w]hat is crucial is that a government practice not have the effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion. Lynch, 465 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 1355 (O'Connor, J., concurring). This analysis adopts the viewpoint of a reasonable observer familiar with the history and context of the display and asks whether they would perceive the display as a government endorsement of religion. Borden v. Sch. Dist. of Twp. East Brunswick, 523 F.3d 153, 175 (3d Cir.2008) (citing Modrovich v. Allegheny Cnty., Pa., 385 F.3d 397, 400 (3d Cir.2004)). The Supreme Court applied the endorsement test in its most recent school prayer case. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308, 120 S.Ct. 2266. The endorsement test and the second Lemon prong are essentially the same. Black Horse Pike, 84 F.3d at 1486 (Whether `the endorsement test' is part of the inquiry under Lemon or a separate inquiry apart from it, the import of the test is the same.); see also Freethought Soc. of Greater Philadelphia v. Chester Cnty., 334 F.3d 247, 269 (3d Cir.2003) (describing effect prong of Lemon as a cognate to endorsement). This Court has applied both tests. See Busch v. Marple Newtown Sch. Dist., 567 F.3d 89, 100-01 (3d Cir.2009) (applying Lemon ); Borden, 523 F.3d at 175 (applying endorsement test); Black Horse Pike, 84 F.3d at 1484 (applying Lemon but noting that it had been the subject of critical debate in recent years). Because Lemon has not been overruled, we will apply it here. However, as we have done elsewhere, [i]n light of the critique of the Lemon test, we will also consider [the] claim that the [Board's Policy] fails the `endorsement test.' Stratechuk v. Bd. of Educ., South Orange-Maplewood Sch. Dist., 587 F.3d 597, 603 (3d Cir.2009); see also Modrovich, 385 F.3d at 406 (we will apply both the endorsement test and the Lemon test, in case a higher court prefers to apply the traditional Lemon test).