Religion in Schools
Case Law Problem 2
David Black, Jim Jennings,
Bob Feller, Joe Peters,
Mark Goodwin, Connie Snell
Religious Holiday break
Decision - There was no Impermissible
establishment of religion in creating a public
holiday at the same time as the Christian
holy day of Good Friday
. The Board’s argument that these school
closings served the secular purpose of
saving money and maintaining the school’s
effectiveness in the face of high rate
absenteeism for those days
Koenick V Felton (1999)
Religious Holiday break cont.
The same reasons the board closed
schools for the Jewish holidays of Yon
Kippur and Rosh Hashanah.
The Court also stated that the
holidays did not violate the other two
prongs of the Lemon Test.
Koenick V Felton (1999)
Instruction of Religious Holidays
 Historical and cultural roots of religious
holidays was permitted, but not in a manner
which would indicate endorsement or
disagreement with that religion or that
holiday.
 School could erect displays with the religious
symbols (menorahs, nativity scenes, etc.),
but only if they are temporary and part of
the general classroom instruction.
Public Performance
 Public performances of religious music,
religious dramas, religious poetry, were
permitted if they were part of the
educational efforts of the school.
Results of decision:
 Public schools are permitted to make
extensive use of religious materials during
religious holidays of the administrator’s
choosing without violating the separation of
church and state. So long as the school can
claim to be working for the purpose of
educating students about the religious and
historical heritage of the holiday – even if it
is their own holiday which they know well –
there is no constitutional problem.
Florey V. Sioux Falls S.D. (1980)
Proposal to the Student Handbook
The school will not
acknowledge holiday
celebrations. The
school will acknowledge
seasonal holidays. The
content of the curricula
will be non-religious in
nature.
Cammack v. Waihee
Pledge Of Allegiance Handbook
Revision
 According to State Law 105:5/27-3, the
Pledge of Allegiance will be recited every
morning. Anyone whose documented
religious beliefs do not allow them to recite
the pledge may stand quietly with the class
or remain quietly in their seats.
 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624, 63 S. Ct. 1178 (1943).
Supporting Cases
 Sherman v. Community Consolidated
School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th
Cir. 1992). “Under god” is not understood to
convey approval of any particular religious belief.
 Goetz v. Ansell, 477 F.2d 636 (2nd Cir.
1973).
Cannot force student to leave the room or
stand in silence during the pledge.
 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.
Ct. 273 (1972). Due to longstanding and
identifiable fundamental beliefs the Amish have
demonstrated the sincerity of their religious beliefs
that few other religious groups or sects could. We
believe the Jehovah's Witnesses also make this case.
 Elk Grove Unified School District v.
Newdow (02-1624) 542 U.S. 1 (2004)
328 F.3d 466, reversed. The Pledge is
constitutional and the words “under god” do not
violate the Establishment and Free Exercise
Clauses.
Pre-game Prayers
 Each student has a right to individually,
voluntarily, and silently pray or meditate in
school in a manner that does not disrupt
instructional or other activities of the
school. The school will not require,
encourage, or coerce a student to engage in
or to refrain from such prayer or meditation
during any school activity (including but not
limited to assemblies, sporting events, and
graduations).
School Policy Could Not
 Allow students to vote on whether a student
would present a “brief invocation and/or
message” before football games
 Students could not elect a student from a
list of student volunteers to deliver it.
Adler v.
Duval City School Board, 250 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2001).
Court Held:
 Invocation is not a private speech
 Remarks were adopted by school
officials
 Prayer took place on government
property
 Game was a school-sponsored event
Election System Ensured
 Minority view were not heard
 Students forced to decide between
attending event or being subjected to
offensive religious speech