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

Heading: The Excessive Entanglement Prong

Text: Part three of the Lemon test provides that government conduct may not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 613, 91 S.Ct. 2105. [T]o assess entanglement, we have looked to `the character and purpose of the institutions that are benefitted, the nature of the aid that the State provides, and the resulting relationship between the government and religious authority.' Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 233, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997) (quoting Lemon, 403 U.S. at 615, 91 S.Ct. 2105). We must also bear in mind that excessive entanglement requires more than mere `[i]nteraction between church and state,' for some level of interaction has always been `tolerated.' Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J. Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist., 386 F.3d 514, 534 (3d Cir.2004) (Alito, J.) (quoting Agostini, 521 U.S. at 233, 117 S.Ct. 1997). Several institutional aspects of the recitation of the prayer are troubling. The prayers are not spontaneous, but a formal part of the Board's activities. The Board explicitly decided that a prayer or a moment of silence should be part of every School Board meeting. The decis[ion] that an invocation and a benediction should be given ... is a choice attributable to the State. Lee, 505 U.S. at 587, 112 S.Ct. 2649. That level of involvement, the Supreme Court cautions, is troubling. Id. In this case, the Policy resulted from, and was sanctioned by, the Board's institutional authority in that it was enacted through a vote. Second, the prayers are recited in official meetings that are completely controlled by the state. The Board sets the agenda for the meeting, chooses what individuals may speak and when, and in this context, recites a prayer to initiate the meeting. Thus, the circumstances surrounding the prayer practices suggest excessive government entanglement. The practice and the Prayer Policy bear two additional hallmarks of state involvement: the Board composes and recites the prayer. Government participation in the composition of prayer is precisely the type of activity that the Establishment Clause guards against. See Lee, 505 U.S. at 590, 112 S.Ct. 2649 ([O]ur precedents do not permit school officials to assist in composing prayers as an incident to a formal exercise for their students.). In this case, the Board always composes the prayers recited at the public meetings. Per the Policy's stated terms, only Board Members are permitted to offer a prayer or request a moment of silence. The Policy ensures that a prayer or moment of silence is offered at every meeting, since the duty rotates in the case that a member declines to exercise this opportunity. Unsurprisingly, Board Members who volunteer for this duty take their responsibility seriously, carefully choosing the words and message they wish to deliver. The composition of the prayer is a hallmark of state involvement. See Adler v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 250 F.3d 1330, 1337 (11th Cir.2001) (The ability to regulate the content of speech is a hallmark of state involvement.). The Supreme Court has found that when government has been involved in the composition of prayer recited in front of students, this violates the principles of the Establishment Clause. In Engel, the Supreme Court struck down a school prayer that was composed by New York State officials. The Court found it significant that the prayer was composed by government officials as part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. Engel, 370 U.S. at 425, 82 S.Ct. 1261. At the very least, the Court explained, the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must ... mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government. Id. In Lee, the Court again drew attention to the excessive control of the state over the content of the prayer, explaining that [t]he State's role did not end with the decision to include a prayer and with the choice of a clergyman. [The principal] provided [the rabbi] with a copy of the `Guidelines for Civic Occasions,' and advised him that his prayers should be nonsectarian. Through these means the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers. 505 U.S. at 588, 112 S.Ct. 2649. Citing Engel, the Lee Court confirmed that the government could play no part in the composition of official prayers. Id. Another element of the Policy revealing excessive entanglement is that the Board recites the prayer. In doing so, the state's involvement goes further than in Santa Fe, where the student body elected a student volunteer, and in Engel, where students recited a prayer composed by the state. Because of the Board President's procedure for implementing the Policy, there is never a meeting where a prayer or a moment of silence is not given. These circumstances are akin to those considered by the Fourth Circuit in Mellen v. Bunting , where the Court of Appeals tackled the constitutionality of a daily prayer recited before dinner at a state military college. 327 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2003). In Mellen, the prayer was delivered by a chaplain employed by the state, and thus, as in this case, the government both composed and recited the prayer. The Fourth Circuit found that the military college's prayer policy was unconstitutional under the Lemon test. In assessing the excessive entanglement prong, the court found that the state composed, mandated, and monitored a daily prayer for its cadets and that, in doing so, [the school] has taken a position on what constitutes appropriate religious worship  an entanglement with religious activity that is forbidden by the Establishment Clause. Id. at 375. [T]he Establishment Clause prohibits a state from promoting religion by authoring and promoting prayer for its citizens. Id. Coles is also instructive. The Sixth Circuit found that the school board practice of reciting a prayer at every meeting violated all three prongs of the Lemon test. Discussing the excessive entanglement prong, the Court of Appeals found the board's involvement indistinguishable from the situation in Lee.  Coles, 171 F.3d at 385. The following features revealed the imprimatur of the state: The school board decided to include prayer in its public meetings, chose which member from the local religious community would give those prayers, and has more recently had the school board president himself compose and deliver prayers to those in the audience. Id. The Board directs us to four aspects of the Prayer Policy which, in its view, show that there is no excessive entanglement. First, the Board Policy permits all types of prayers. Second, all Board Members are permitted to lead the group in accordance with his own conscience. Appellee Br. 52. Third, Board Members and the public are not required to participate in the prayer  [t]hey are free to listen, to stand in respectful silence, or simply to think of something else. Those who are truly bothered... may temporarily leave. Appellee Br. 53. Fourth, the Policy does not require the expenditure of public funds. We are not persuaded that these elements of the prayer practice disentangle the Board from its involvement in religion. While it is true that Board Members have significant flexibility in deciding what the prayer should say, they are still government actors composing and delivering prayer. Moreover, the record shows that for the most part, the prayers recited refer to one particular faith. We earlier rejected the Board's argument that a student's ability to dissent from the prayer transforms the practice into a constitutional one. Finally, we have never required that public spending be an element of excessive state entanglement in religion. In short, the indicia of state involvement in the Board's Prayer Policy are overwhelming. Therefore, we find that the Board's complete control over the Policy, combined with its explicit sectarian content, rises above the level of interaction between church and state that the Establishment Clause permits.