Court Opinion

ID: 9694127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:25:32.381349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:56.794769
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts :
I agree that the hearing court on the case stated properly denied the request for injunctive relief and that its decree should be affirmed.
Appellants have failed to establish entitlement to the equitable relief requested. Here, the record does not disclose, as it could not, the content of the planned invocation and benediction. No court can enjoin speech on the basis of an unsupported assertion that it may offend the sensibilities of some prospective listener. Neither we nor the hearing court could properly assume that those invited to deliver the invocation and benediction at the graduation ceremony would not take account of the public and ceremonial nature of the occasion and the presence of students and adults of all persuasions. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312-13, 72 S. Ct. 679, 683 (1952). So too there is no basis for concluding that a speaker chosen to emphasize the seriousness of the public commencement would not fashion an appropriate message which neither requires any individual to participate in an affirmation which might run counter to his personal belief nor places the state’s imprimatur on any sectarian declaration. School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963).
In the absence of a showing that the planned exercises would infringe the first amendment rights of any individual, an injunction is unavailable.
Mr. Justice Manderino joins in this concurring opinion.