American Humanist Association v. Birdville, 851 F.3d 521

Background

Birdville ISD (BISD) school-board meetings (held in district admin building) have since 1997 featured two student presenters: one leads pledges, the other gives a one-minute “student expression” that has often been an invocation/prayer.
Student speakers are selected by campus rotation or a volunteer pool; BISD tells them not to be obscene and not to discriminate against religious viewpoints; since 2015 BISD renamed the practice and added disclaimers.
Plaintiffs American Humanist Association (AHA) and alumnus Isaiah Smith sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the student-led invocations violate the Establishment Clause; they sought damages and injunctive/declaratory relief.
The district court granted summary judgment for BISD, holding the practice falls within the Supreme Court’s legislative-prayer doctrine; plaintiffs appealed and the board members appealed a denial of qualified immunity (consolidated).
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for BISD, concluding the practice more closely resembles legislative prayer (Marsh/Galloway) than schoolroom coercive prayer (Lee/Santa Fe), and reversed the denial of qualified immunity for the individual defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether student-led invocations at school-board meetings violate the Establishment Clause	Invocations on school-district property, often directed at attendees and delivered by students, are school prayers subject to heightened coercion concerns and thus unconstitutional	School boards are legislative deliberative bodies; invocations are ceremonial legislative prayers akin to Marsh/Galloway and therefore permissible if noncoercive	Court held legislative-prayer exception applies; practice constitutional under these facts
Whether presence of students transforms the practice into a school-prayer case with special coercion concerns	Presence of minors makes coercion likely; children are particularly susceptible to peer pressure	Most attendees are adults, prayers occur during ceremonial portion, lawmakers are the principal audience, and presence of children does not automatically convert the setting to school-prayer context	Court held student presence did not convert the practice into a school-prayer case and did not show coercion here
Whether the historical tradition/practice requirement for legislative prayer is lacking because students (not chaplains) deliver invocations	Historical practice involved chaplains; student-led prayers deviate from that tradition and thus fall outside Marsh/Galloway	Historical tradition supports legislative prayers at deliberative bodies; student speakers do not produce the same entanglement concerns as institutional clergy	Court found history of legislative prayer sufficient and that student delivery did not defeat application of the legislative-prayer exception
Whether board members’ participation (standing/bowing) makes the practice an Establishment Clause violation	Officials’ participation and some officials’ public religiosity signal government endorsement of religion	Officer participation in legislative prayer is consistent with Marsh/Galloway and not per se coercive; lawmakers may participate	Court held such participation did not render the practice unconstitutional in this context

Key Cases Cited

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (upholding legislative prayer based on historical tradition)
Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (extending Marsh to town-board meetings; forbids denigrating or coercive prayers)
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (applying school-prayer principals to student-led prayers at football games)
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (student coercion concerns at school ceremonies; distinguishes legislative-prayer context)
County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (Establishment Clause analysis of government religious displays and sponsorship)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (articulating the Lemon test for Establishment Clause cases)
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (refuses to be confined to a single test in Establishment Clause adjudication)
Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 171 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. holding legislative-prayer exception does not extend to school-board invocations)
Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. holding legislative-prayer exception inapplicable to school-board context)
Doe v. Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist., 70 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. holding coach participation in team prayers unconstitutional endorsement)