Supreme Court declines to hear appeal in school-prayer case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17 denied a petition filed by the Indian River School Board to hear an appeal of the August 2011 decision that reversed an earlier legal victory for the district on the issue of the board’s prayer at its meetings.

After initial filings and findings in the 2005 case involving the Dobrich family and the anonymous plaintiffs Jane and John Doe, most of the claims regarding school-sponsored prayer at school events and graduation-events were settled between the parties by January of 2008. However, the Does went on to file a lawsuit in 2008, arguing specifically that the board’s habit of holding prayer before school board meetings was unconstitutional.

In February of 2010, District Judge Joseph Farnan ruled in the board’s favor, stating that their policy regarding prayers before regular school board meetings is not unconstitutional, based on the board being considered a legislative body. He cited the Supreme Court decision in Marsh v. Chambers in 1983, which held that prayer by legislative bodies is constitutional.

However, in August 2011, the Does were successful in appealing that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, Pa., which reversed the original decision and found in favor of the Does, finding that the involvement of children in the board’s meetings made the prayers an unconstitutional act under the establishment clause found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Before the Third Circuit, the board had argued it should be granted rights under the Marsh v. Chambers precedent, in which the Supreme Court determined that Nebraska’s state legislature did not violate the establishment clause by offering prayer before sessions. Numerous groups have cited the Marsh precedent in similar lawsuits — but not all of them have done so successfully. And, in August, the circuit court denied the IRSD board’s claim under Marsh.

In September 2011, attorney Kate Villanueva of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in Philadelphia, on behalf of the board, noted that, “The Third Circuit didn’t disagree that the school board is a legislative body but somehow decided, because students are there and involved, that the Marsh case didn’t apply.” She said they disagreed with that conclusion.

In September she also said that, if the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case, it would determine whether the circuit court was correct in reversing the original district court decision and ultimately would examine “the constitutionality of school prayer.”

The original complaint to the board in 2005 involved a number of instances in the school district in which Christian prayer, commentary or literature were given at school-based events and meetings. The board initially defended the practices, with support from pro-school-prayer groups and outside attorneys, who said they favored appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court as a way to get a definitive, nationwide legal ruling on the issue of school prayer.

Controversy over the issue led to contentious board meetings and alleged threats against the Dobrich family, causing them to leave the area soon after the suit was filed.

Settlements between the parties eventually resolved all of the legal complaints except those regarding the prayer at school board meetings, which began the meetings and has been led by a member of the board. Members of the public present at the meetings are not required to participate in the prayer but have generally done so.

While the district has asserted that students are not required to attend the meetings, in some cases, students must be present to attend disciplinary hearings held in private during the sessions and others frequently attend to participate in ceremonies, presentations and public comment periods.

The appeals court finding against the board in August led to an altered policy in which a moment of silence replaced the board-led prayer. District representatives have said they planned to continue use of the moment of silence pending a decision in their favor during the appeals process. With the rejection of the appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court, that appeals process has been exhausted.

“We were disappointed that the Supreme Court decided not to review our case,” Villanueva told the Coastal Point on Jan. 18, in response to the announcement. “Our case presented a significant issue of Constitutional law. We are disappointed they didn’t weigh in on the issue to provide guidance in this area.

“Yes, the case is over, but now we have to figure out what exactly is permissible under the existing law and go from there,” she added. “We believe that the law is clear and supports our position, but the Third Circuit Court disagreed. And we would’ve liked to have heard the Supreme Court say that we were right, or even that we were wrong, but we are left with the Third Circuit Court’s decision.”

Calls for comment on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the board’s appeal, from attorneys representing the Doe family, were not returned prior to the Coastal Point’s press deadline.