896 F.3d 1132
9th Cir.2018Background
- Chino Valley Unified School District Board (Board) held regular public meetings that began the open session with an invocation/prayer; meetings included student performances, awards, a voting student representative, and were broadcast.
- In 2013 the Board adopted a formal prayer policy allowing clergy or religious leaders on a district-created list to deliver invocations; policy limited review of prayer content and prioritized clergy invitations.
- Board members publicly endorsed Christian messages, read Bible passages, and linked Board work to Christianity at multiple meetings.
- Freedom From Religion Foundation and others sued, alleging the prayer policy and practice violated the Establishment Clause; district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs and enjoined school-sponsored prayer at Board meetings.
- The Board appealed; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the Board’s invocation practice unconstitutional and upholding the injunction as appropriately tailored to bar government- sponsored prayer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board opening invocations at public school-board meetings violate the Establishment Clause | Invocations constitute government- sponsored religious exercise in a school setting that coerces or endorses religion, especially given children in attendance | Invocations fall within the historical legislative-prayer tradition (Marsh/Town of Greece) and are therefore permissible | Held: Not within legislative-prayer tradition; Invocations violate the Establishment Clause under Lemon because the policy lacked a secular purpose |
| Whether the Marsh/Town of Greece legislative-prayer exception applies to school-board meetings | N/A (plaintiff argued it did not apply) | Board argued the practice aligns with Marsh/Town of Greece and so avoids Lemon scrutiny | Held: Legislative-prayer exception inapplicable because audience included children not free to avoid participation and school boards exercise control over students; historical tradition inapposite to public schools |
| Whether the prayer policy had a secular purpose under Lemon prong one | Policy’s stated purposes (solemnization; respect for religious diversity) are pretextual given Board history and means chosen (invocations by clergy) | Claimed secular purposes: solemnizing meetings and acknowledging religious diversity | Held: No genuine secular purpose; policy’s design and officials’ statements showed predominant religious purpose |
| Whether the injunction prohibiting school-sponsored prayer was overbroad or impermissibly censored speech | N/A (plaintiff sought injunction) | Board argued injunction improperly restricted protected speech in public-comment portions | Held: Injunction lawful and narrow—targets only governmental, school- sponsored prayer; enjoining officials from endorsing such prayer is permissible to comply with Establishment Clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (establishes three-prong test for Establishment Clause analysis)
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholds legislative prayer tradition for legislatures)
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014) (applies historical tradition to town-board prayers; emphasizes context-sensitive analysis)
- Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) (student-led school prayer at football games unconstitutional; scrutinizes purported secular purposes)
- Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (struck down school-sponsored prayer)
- Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (prayer at graduation violates Establishment Clause due to coercion of minors)
- McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (purpose inquiry: government action violates first Lemon prong if predominant purpose is religious)