Opinion ID: 222596
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Primary Effect Prong

Text: Under the second prong of Lemon, a state's practice can neither advance, nor inhibit religion. Black Horse Pike, 84 F.3d at 1486. This means that regardless of its purpose, the government practice cannot symbolically endorse or disapprove of religion. Busch, 567 F.3d at 100. As explained earlier, the second prong of Lemon is akin, if not identical, to the endorsement test. [15] Black Horse Pike, 84 F.3d at 1486. This Court must determine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the challenged practice conveys a message favoring or disfavoring religion. Id. In doing so, we adopt the viewpoint of the reasonable observer and may take into account the `history and ubiquity' of [the] practice, since it `provides part of the context in which a reasonable observer evaluates whether a challenged governmental practice conveys a message of endorsement of religion.' Id. (quoting Sch. Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 390, 105 S.Ct. 3216, 87 L.Ed.2d 267 (1985)). Appellees concede that the Prayer Policy has the incidental effect of advancing religion. Appellee Br. 52. They argue nonetheless that there is no evidence from which a reasonable observer could conclude that advancing religion is the prayer policy's primary effect. Rather, the primary purpose of the Policy is to solemnify the Board's proceedings. For the two reasons that follow, we find that the Policy impermissibly endorses religion. First, the largely religious content of the prayers would suggest to a reasonable person that the primary effect of the Policy is to promote Christianity. Of course, by its very terms, the Policy permits references to any religious figure and allows non-sectarian prayer. As discussed earlier, the majority of the prayers delivered by the Board are  by the Board Members' own admission  sectarian. Only occasionally have Board Members used this opportunity to propose a moment of silence. These prayers therefore constitute religious activity. Lee, 505 U.S. at 603, 112 S.Ct. 2649 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (In the words of Engel, the Rabbi's prayer `is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessings of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious.') (citation omitted). We will again cite to the following example as an illustration: Dear Heavenly Father, among Your many blessings, we thank You for the beautiful summer weather and especially for the much needed rain. We thank You also for the wonderful school year that has just ended with so many successes, awards, and accomplishments of our students and staff once again. We ask Your continued blessings on those among us who have devoted so much time, energy, and expertise to the betterment of this district and who are now stepping down. Given them peace, health, and happiness in the days to come. Be with our people who have suffered illness or injury this year, and grant them a quick return to normal life. Comfort the families of those who are lost to us and give them strength in their time of grief. Protect all who are here and return them to us safely in the fall. We ask that You continue to guide and direct us in ... our decision-making, so that every child in this district receives the educational skills to be all he/she can be. We ask these things and all others in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. Indian River, 685 F.Supp.2d at 547. Given that the prayers recited are nearly exclusively Christian in nature, including explicit references to God or Jesus Christ or the Lord, we find it difficult to accept the proposition that a reasonable person would not find that the primary effect of the Prayer Policy was to advance religion. Appellees maintain that the purpose and effect of the prayer is to solemnify the meetings. It is true, as the previous example reveals, that the prayers ask for guidance on school-related matters. In this respect the Indian River policy is similar to the policy the Supreme Court considered in Santa Fe, whose stated purpose was also to solemnize the event. 530 U.S. at 306, 120 S.Ct. 2266. The Court acknowledged that [a] religious message is the most obvious method of solemnizing an event. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 306, 120 S.Ct. 2266. However, the fact that the purpose of the policy is to solemnify the Board meetings does not mean that it does not also impermissibly endorse religion. The two are separate components of our inquiry. See Borden, 523 F.3d at 177-78 (First, the inquiry is not whether Borden intends to endorse religion, but whether a reasonable observer, with knowledge of the history and context of the display, would conclude that he is endorsing religion.). The second prong of the Lemon test asks us to adopt the viewpoint of a reasonable observer, regardless of what purpose the Board might have had. In light of that obligation, we find that a reasonable observer would view the content of the Board's prayers as promoting religion. [16] We are also instructed to consider the history and ubiquity of the challenged practice in assessing how a reasonable person would view it. Our decision in Borden showcases the significance of the history and context of a contested practice to its constitutionality. In Borden, we tackled the head high school football coach's practice of engag[ing] in the silent act[] of bowing his head during his team's pre-meal grace and taking a knee with his team during a locker-room prayer. Id. at 158. Borden, who had been the head football coach since 1983, had a long history of engaging in similar conduct: For twenty-three years, Borden led the team in a pre-game prayer in the locker room. During that same period of time, Borden orchestrated a pre-meal grace for his team. He originally had a chaplain conduct the pre-meal grace. This practice changed only after school officials asked him to stop; then he had the chaplain write the grace and he selected seniors on the team to recite it. Additionally, during at least three seasons, Borden led the team in the first prayer of the season. Both of these activities, the locker room preparations and the pre-game meals, were school-sponsored events. Id. at 176. Relying in part on the history of Borden's conduct with the team's prayers we found that his acts cross the line and constitute an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Id. at 178. We drew support from Santa Fe, where in addressing the constitutionality of a prayer recited over loud speakers at football games, the Supreme Court considered the many years of pre-game prayers at the school, and the evolution of the policy, including the name `Prayer at Football Games' and its stated purpose. Id. at 176 (citing Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308-09, 120 S.Ct. 2266). The history and context of the Indian River Policy is similarly revealing. Prayer in school and at school events has been a contentious issue in the Indian River School District for some time. In fact, the Board's decision to write an official prayer policy grew out of this debate and efforts to stall a possible civil action against the Board. The original event to kindle this heated debate was the Indian River School District's policy of permitting official prayer at school graduations. While that claim eventually settled, the underlying events inform our understanding of the history of prayer in the District. In 2004, recall, the School District invited a pastor to recite an invocation and benediction at one of the district high school graduation ceremonies. Indian River, 685 F.Supp.2d at 528. The benediction explicitly invoked Jesus Christ. For example, in the benediction, Reverend Fike stated: `Heavenly Father... direct [graduates] into the truth, and eventually the truth that comes by knowing Jesus.' Id. Mona Dobrich, one of the original plaintiffs, complained about the prayer during the Board's regularly-scheduled meeting on June 14, 2004. Id. at 529. Dobrich's complaint garnered significant media attention from Delaware newspapers. News that the ACLU was threatening to sue the District spread quickly and the complaint was widely reported by the local news media. At the Board's July 27, 2004 meeting, [t]hirteen residents, including five religious leaders, spoke up both for and against allowing prayer at the district's functions, particularly graduation ceremonies. [17] JA 81. [M]ore than 100 people attended [the meeting] with the majority interpreting Dobrich's request as a move to stifle their religious freedom and to degrade the moral fiber of the community. JA 81. One newspaper described some of the comments made: Pastor Richard Blades ... spoke of Biblical mandate for prayer in Jesus' name, adding, our school district has prayed in Jesus' name for many, many years. Pastor Marvin Morris received hardy applause after suggesting doing away with prayer will lead to an erosion of [the] community's foundations. Another offered the opinion that if it hadn't been for prayer, the school district could be in a greater mess than it currently is. Those on the other side of the debate argued for tolerance and acceptance of all faiths.... Mona Dobrich, the Jewish mother who first brought the issue to the public's attention, read a prepared speech, charging the district with a legal obligation to do away with secular prayer. JA 81. The Board grew concerned that it would be the subject of a lawsuit. Dobrich, 380 F.Supp.2d at 371. The District Court explained what happened next: On August 23, 2004, the Board convened a special meeting to discuss prayer at the beginning of Board meetings. According to the minutes of that session, which lasted several hours, several board members expressed that their constituents d[id] not want the Board to change its practice of opening the meetings with a prayer. Indian River, 685 F.Supp.2d at 529. The Board's next regularly-scheduled meeting took place the next day. This meeting: attracted more than twice the attendance of a typical public meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, then-Board President Walls asked Board Member Hattier to lead the Board in a moment of prayer. Several members of the crowd applauded. President Walls gaveled the room back to order. [Board] Member Hattier then gave [another prayer]..... During the portion of the meeting devoted to public comments, several attendees spoke in favor of continuing the practice of having an invocation at public school graduations and other school events. Id. A newspaper reported that approximately 800 people attended the meeting, a majority ... [of whom] supported the board's decision to open with prayer and continue the practice at commencement. JA 202. Jane Doe testified that attendees were shouting Amen and hallelujah during the meeting. JA 135. The newspaper article confirmed this: attendees shouted out `Amen' or `Praise Jesus' after scripture passages were quoted during the public comment period. JA 202. The article goes on to describe the attendees holding signs reading Jesus is the Light of the Word and Let us Pray, God is Listening. JA 202. In addition, [l]ocal churches and community members organized a prayer vigil before the meeting. JA at 203. One community member present[ed] the board with a petition signed by 320 people who want to see prayer continued at graduation. JA at 203. The meeting was also attended by several state representatives. During the public comment period, one of them stated to the Board, You have the public behind you ... If you do not do the right thing, the public will take you out, not the ACLU. JA 87. Board Member Bireley conceded that the vast majority of comments at the meeting were probably intended to be intimidating to opponents of school board prayer. JA 415. This history is illuminating. This sequence of events shows that the Board's Prayer Policy is closely linked to the desire to maintain prayer at Indian River school events, including at graduations. After all, it was in response to this community uproar that the Board was compelled to draft a formal Prayer Policy. Indian River, 685 F.Supp.2d at 529. These events also show how the public viewed the prayer issue. As exemplified by the August 24, 2004 meeting, there was clearly broad support among community members for the practice of prayer at the School Board meetings and District graduations. Not only did most of the attendees support the Board's practice, but their conduct reveals that in the minds of many, the issue of prayer at the Board meetings and graduations was closely intertwined with religion. In Board Member Helms's words, it was apparent to me that not only did they want to take away prayer before graduation, but they wanted to take my right to pray at a Board meeting. JA 767. The Policy was drafted in order to safeguard against a potential lawsuit challenging the Board's unwritten practice of praying at every public meeting. The Policy was also drafted in an atmosphere of contention and hostility towards those who wanted prayers to be eliminated from school events. A reasonable person aware of this history would conclude that the primary effect of the Board's Policy was to endorse religion.