Lee v. Weisman

personally WEISMAN, and as LEE et al. of WEISMAN friend

next 24, 1992 June Argued November 90-1014. No. 1991Decided Blackmun, Court, Kennedy, in which J., opinion of the delivered the Blackmun, post, J., O’Connor, Soutek, JJ., Stevens, joined. and Souter, 609, concurring opinions, in which post, J., p. filed and p. Scalia, O’Connor, JJ., J., dissenting opin- joined. filed a Stevens and Thomas, JJ., Rehnquist, White joined, J., and ion, C. and which post, p. 631. Cooper J.

Charles the cause for With argued petitioners. Fer- Garvin, A. Peter J. briefs were Michael on him the Cynkar, Joseph Jay Botella, and Alan A. rara, Robert J. Sekulow. Starr argued General the

Solicitor the cause for United curiae as amicus on the him reversal. With urging States Attorney Deputy Gerson, So- General brief were Assistant Attorney Deputy General Roberts, Assistant licitor General and Richard H. Seamon. McGinnis, Blanding

Sandra A. cause the for argued respondent. Shapiro R. and John were Steven brief her on the With A. Powell.*

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Board of Edu- Burbidge R. F Brinton Merrill by and Alpine School District cation of Nelson; McGlynn by Edward Legal Society et al. for the Christian Gaff- Ericsson, Montgom- D. ney, Woodruff, J. Samuel E. Forest and Michael by Kemp R. Harshman and Ronald ery; for the Clarendon Foundation Court. the opinion Kennedy delivered Justice city system school principals School members to invite Island, permitted Rhode Providence, prayers benediction and invocation offer the clergy schools middle for ceremonies graduation formal part in- is whether us before question schools. high for and as part offer prayers who members clerical cluding with consistent ceremony graduation school official Amendment, provisions First Clauses Religion force full applicable makes Amendment Fourteenth districts. school their and States Matthew by James al. et for America Women Maines; Concerned for D. Henderson, Patrick Troobnick, Thomas N. Lorence, Mark Sr., Jordan H. Galebach by Stephen Family et al. Focus for Monaghan; Staver; for the D. by Mathew Liberty Counsel Milkman; for D. Laura Lewin by Nathan Affairs and Public Lawon Commission Jewish National K. Skol- by Robert Foundation Legal National for the Rapps; and Dennis al. et Institute McCormick; the Rutherford for M. Brian rood Hurst, E. Johnston, Stephen Crow, A. Eric Whitehead, I. Alexis W. John Heller, Dougherty, Amy J Brian Neuberger, Secóla, S. Thomas Joseph Bonner, Melnick, William R. Stratum, Robert Melton, W Thomas David Specialty Knicely; for Bundren, and James Crain, W. Charles Larry Bap- Lorence; the Southern by Jordan Associates, Inc., al. et Research K. Whitehead by Michael Commission Life Christian Convention tist Conference Catholic States the United Smart, Jr.; M. James Phillip Harris. H. and Chopko E. Mark for for Americans filed were affirmance urging curiae of amici Briefs Jewish American and Lindsay; for by A Ronald Liberty Religious Douglas Laycock. by et Congress al. by Charles of Delaware the State for filed were curiae of amici Briefs Foster, Solicitor F. Delaware, Michael Attorney III, General Oberly M. on Reli- for the Council Ripsom; B. David Swayze, and General, David S. Carson, Nixon, E. Walter W. Boothby, Robert by Lee et al. Freedom gious Joe by Principles Life Basic Truman; the Institute for and Holland Religious and Education Public for Coalition National Reynolds; National Gunn; and Jeremy and T. B. Isbell by David Liberty et al. W. Stein- August Gregory, Gwendolyn H. Association Boards School A Shannon. hilber, and Thomas

I A Bishop graduated Middle from Nathan Weisman Deborah ceremony- at a formal Providence, school School, a many years years old. For was about 1989. She in June policy of the Providence School Committee been the it has permit principals to Superintendent of Schools and clergy give invocations benedic- of the members invite graduations. Many, high school middle school tions prayers as principals to include elected of the all, but Acting graduation for himself part ceremonies. objected to daughter, Weisman, Daniel father, Deborah’s his graduation, but to no any prayers middle school at Deborah’s principal, petitioner in- Lee, Robert E. The school avail. graduation prayers at the exercises rabbi to deliver vited a Temple of the Gutterman, Leslie class. Rabbi for Deborah’s accepted. Providence, El in Beth school officials custom of Providence has been

It pamphlet clergy entitled “Guidelines provide with invited prepared the National Conference Occasions,” for Civic recommend The Guidelines and Jews. of Christians composed public prayers ceremonies be nonsectarian civic though sensitivity,” they acknowl- “inclusiveness any inappropriate edge “[pjrayer be kind , principal gave App. 20-21. civic some occasions.” graduation pamphlet before Rabbi Gutterman benediction should nonsee- the invocation and him advised ¶ Agreed id., of Facts at 13. Statement tarian. prayers were follows:

Rabbi Gutterman’s

“INVOCATION Hope of Brave: Free, “God diversity legacy of America where is cele- “For the rights protected, we and the of minorities brated up grow women young men May these You. thank it. to enrich May You. thank liberty America, we "Por guard up it. to grow graduates new these all in which of America process political "For all system where its court for may participate, citizens May we honor those You. justice we thank may seek always trust. to morning turn this May the You. thank we destiny of America “For live that so Bishop. School Middle Nathan graduates of it. help might to share they country for these our aspirations for

“May our future, be hope for are our people, young who richly fulfilled.

AMEN” “BENEDICTION having us endowed grateful You for to God, we “0 celebrated learning we capacity for which with joyous commencement. on this seeing their children give thanks

“Happy families blessings Your Send important milestone. an achieve helped pre- who administrators upon the teachers pare them. guidance for strength need graduates now

“The com- that we are help to understand them future, each knowledge We must alone. plete academic justly, To do all: require us You fulfill what strive humbly. mercy, walk to love keeping alive, us Lord, You, give thanks

“We special, allowing reach us sustaining us and happy occasion.

AMEN” at 22-23. Id., many respects, and we sparse in case in this record

The practice at middle any or custom fixed with unfamiliar are “pro- as district the school to referred graduations, school refer- with so constrained not areWe exercises.” motional graduations are High school high schools, however. ence can that we cultural life integral part American an such customary confirmed features, their describe confidence parties’ representations by the by aspects record system, most school Providence argument. In the oral at away from are conducted graduation ceremonies high school on are held ceremonies school most middle while school, the now High which Deborah School, premises. Classical school on school graduation ceremonies conducted has attends, The ¶ id., at 17. 37, Facts Agreed Statement premises. graduation ceremonies at stipulate that attendance parties ¶ at 18. id., Facts Agreed Statement voluntary. processional, sub- group ain as a enter graduating students sit officials, and and school of teachers ject direction to the clergy’s the assume We families. apart their together, would graduation exercise any high school participation ceremony. school middle Deborah’s it was what about be Allegiance and Pledge of the stood students There prayers. of Oral during Tr. rabbi’s standing remained respect- assumption there was on the Arg. Even 38. prayers, after before both of silence moment ful be- much extended not presentations must rabbi’s two he whether do know if that. We yond each, a minute ceremony, or whether during whole stage on remained stage, if he diplomas individual received students congratulate them. helped supports (and States, which United board school curiae) prayers argued short these amicus profound graduation exercises them

others like throughout coun- this parents meaning many students acknowledgment for respect and try that due consider who aspirations of deepest spiritual guidance and for divine important expressed ought event as people at an our so in address- to be graduation. We assume in life as significance ing us, now before the difficult case and Deborah prayers of Daniel at the heart lies also case. Weisman’s

B premises of Nathan graduation held the was Deborah’s days Bishop Four before 29, 1989. on June School Middle capacity ceremony, Weisman, in his individual Daniel the sought taxpayer Deborah, next friend and as Providence a restraining District temporary United States order the a prohibit school offi- Island to of Rhode for the District Court grad- including the an invocation benediction cials from lack ceremony. the motion court denied The uation family and her at- adequate Deborah to consider it. time prayers In graduation, were recited. where tended complaint July seek- an amended filed 1989,Daniel Weisman barring petitioners, injunction various offi- ing permanent a inviting from schools, cials of the Providence at future clergy and benedictions to deliver invocations unnecessary to address Daniel graduations. it We find standing, justiciable taxpayer a and con- live Weisman’s aas troversy is enrolled Deborah Weisman is before us. High from the and in Providence at Classical School student likely, appears an invocation certain, if not it record graduation. high school at her will be conducted benediction Agreed App. ¶ 38, Facts 17. Statement of stipulated The District facts. submitted on The case was including petitioners' practice invoca- held Court graduations violated public school tions benedictions Amendment, the First Clause of Establishment continuing practice. 728 enjoined petitioners (1990). three-part applied the Supp. The court F. Kurtzman, v. set forth in test Lemon Establishment Clause (1971). in our described Under that test as 403 U. S. governmen- satisfy the Establishment past cases, to (2) clearly purpose; (1) secular reflect practice must tal inhibits reli- nor advances neither primary effect that entanglement with (3) government excessive gion; avoid Liberty Religious Ed. & Public religion. Committee for (1973). held Court The District 756, Nyquist, 413 U. S. part test, the second violated petitioners' actions the third. first or either address did not and so reading precedents, that of our based on decided, court government whenever violated of Lemon test the effects religion, with a the state identification “creates an action “the Supp., at or when general,” F. religion in or with one is to endorse governmental action effect general.” Id., at 72. religion in another, or to endorse over including invoca- practice of court determined ones, in nonsectarian so-called even benedictions, tions govern- graduations an identification creates public school religion, and religious practice, endorses power with mental holding the court In so Clause. violates v. Plainwell to follow Stein not expressed the determination (1987), in which 1406 Community 822 F. 2d Schools, relying deci- on our Circuit, Appeals Sixth for the Court (1983), held U. S. 783 Chambers, 463 in Marsh sion graduations are public school at and invocations benedictions upheld the con- always Marsh we In unconstitutional. not practice Legislature's stitutionality State of the Nebraska chap- prayer a a offered with opening of its sessions each case in this Court public District paid out of funds. lain reasoning it be- because disagreed Circuit's the Sixth to the decision, “limited a narrow was Marsh lieved unique any legislative prayer,” did not have situation Supp., prayer 74. 728 F. cases. school relevance Appeals for the appeal, States Court of the United On by Judge opinion Tor- majority affirmed. Circuit First opinion 908 F. 2d adopted of the District Court. ruella (1990). majority, joined wrote Judge but Bownes concurring opinion which he decided separate parts challenged practices all three of the here violated agree Judge with the Bownes went on to Dis- Lemon test. prayer application had to school Court that Marsh no trict flawed. He concluded and that the Stein decision was cases by suggesting that under Clause rules no Deity, excluding any prayer, of the one mention could even ceremony. graduation school be offered at Judge Campbell dissented, on the basis 2d, at 1090-1097. F. prayers if He deliv- and Stein. reasoned Marsh if nonsectarian, ered were school officials ensured that variety systems persons representing of beliefs and ethical present benedictions, there were invited to invocations 2d, was no violation of the Establishment Clause. F. (1991), granted and now certiorari, 499 U. S. 1099. We affirm.

II control the confines of our These dominant facts mark and performance of a formal decision: State officials direct religious graduation promotional and exercise at ceremonies secondary object students who schools. Even for those participation their attendance and exercise, to the activity state-sponsored religious in a fair and real obligatory, though require the school district does sense receipt diploma. attendance as a condition for of the require ques This case does not us to revisit the difficult dividing questions tions us cases, in recent of the definition scope principles governing per and full extent mitted accommodation State for the beliefs practices many County of its citizens. See Alle gheny Union, v. American Liberties Civil Greater Pitts (1989); burgh Chapter, 492 U. S. 573 Wallace v. 472 Jaffree, (1984). (1985); Lynch Donnelly, U. S. v. U. S. For principles without reference to those in other contexts, the controlling precedents they prayer as relate to and primary secondary public compel exercise in schools the holding policy city that here the of the an of Providence is recon without case the decide canWe one. unconstitutional pub by which framework general constitutional sidering the religion measured. to accommodate efforts lic schools’ ami- petitioners accept invitation the not dowe Thus v. Lemon in decision our reconsider States the United cus reli with involvement government supra. The Kurtzman, point creat to the pervasive, is activity case this in gious religious exercise and state-directed state-sponsored ing a religious observ Conducting formal this public school. a prayer exer pertaining to rules settled conflicts ance question the to determine suffices that students, and cises for us. before free the may accommodate government that principle The limi- supersede fundamental the religion not does

exercise beyond It is Clause. by the Establishment imposed tations guarantees minimum, the Constitution a that, dispute participate support or anyone to coerce government way which in a act otherwise or exercise, its tends religious faith, or religion or [state] a “establishes Allegheny, County also see supra, 678; Lynch, do so.” Ewing, Ed. Board quoting Everson supra, at (1947). involvement State’s The 1, 15-16 U. S. central today these challenged violates prayers school principles. A troubling is undenied. as involvement That an invocation principal, decided official, school attributable given; is a choice should

benediction as if perspective it is a constitutional State, occur. prayers must decreed state statute rabbi, here participant, principal chose reason State. to the is also attributable choice but record, disclosed is not rabbi of a choice particular aof choice over potential for divisiveness ceremony apparent. clergy conduct member any re- state decision attend course, can Divisiveness, of potential nor its existence religions, and neither specting attempts necessarily accommodate invalidates the State’s par- potential religion is of for divisiveness in all cases. though, around an it centers here because ticular relevance secondary environment school exercise overt subtle co- 593-594, see where, as we discuss below, infra, real pressures the student had no exist and where ercive the fact allowed her to avoid would have alternative which appearance participation. include a end with the decision to role did not State’s Principal clergyman. prayer of a Lee and with the choice copy provided of the with a “Guidelines Rabbi Gutterman prayers his should Occasions,” and advised him that for Civic principal Through di- these means be nonseetarian. prayers. Even if of the and controlled the content rected only ignoring were sanction for the instructions religious repre- no invited we think back, rabbi would not be reputation and his or her continued sentative who valued community incur the State’s dis- effectiveness in the would principle regard. pleasure a cornerstone of our in this It is part jurisprudence that is no of the “it any prayers government compose official business of American, part people group recite as a of a by Engel program government,” Vitale, 370 carried on (1962), officials at- the school U. and that is what S. tempted to do. nothing argue, in the case to refute

Petitioners and we find prayers the content of the were a it, that the directions for good-faith attempt to ensure that the sectarian- the school religious animosity flashpoint ism which is so often ceremony. graduation The concern be removed from the images prayer ideas or iden- which uses understandable, as particular sort of foster a different tified with a rivalry in terms than an or benediction sectarian invocation explanation, however, does not more neutral. The school’s ques- participation. The resolve the dilemma caused attempting good to make tion is not the faith of the school in legitimacy of persons, but acceptable most prayer object tois the when enterprise all undertaking that religious exercise a formal in used prayer to be a produce obliged to are purposes, practical all students, which attend. practice of of a recognize the existence to are asked We is what of the embrace within prayer prayer, nonseetarian is which prayer tradition, Judeo-Christian as the known explicit example, makes which, for one acceptable than more ato Christ, or to Jesus or Israel, ofGod the to references empirical support, as an some be There patron saint. for the Appeals Court the the statement observation, to the dissent Campbell’s Judge by up picked Circuit, Sixth emerged in this has there that case, Appeals Court sectar- when tolerated is religion, which one country civic 2dF. 1409; 908 Stein, 2d, F. not. exercises ian (case dissenting) 1990) (Campbell, (CA1 J., 1098-1099 Religion and Civil below); Note, also see ground be can (1986). common If L. J. 95 Yale Clause, express the conflicting to faiths permits once which defined morality which and an ethic there is conviction shared pur- community and sense invention, human transcend But might advanced. be societies by decent sought all pose government allow does Amendment though First does neither ends, aspire these to prayers which stifle to itself. task to undertake government permit the reli- mean Religion Clauses Amendment’s First precious expression are too gious beliefs design State. prescribed proscribed either transmission preservation is the Constitution a choice responsibility worship a religious beliefs promised sphere, itself which private committed forgotten not be must It mission. pursue that freedom protec- given to define must be concern that while then, dissenting nonbeliever, these objector or a granted anto tion in- government religion from protect exist Clauses same principal Madison, terference. author of Bill James opposition Rights, did not rest his to a establish- minority. ground on the of its on the A ment sole effect ground principal “[Ejxperience for his view was: witnesseth maintaining establishments, that ecclesiastical instead of efficacy purity Religion, contrary op- had a Religious Against eration.” Memorial and Remonstrance (1785), Papers in 8 Assessments James Madison 301 (W. 1973). Ripel, Rachal, Rutland, R. B. & F. Teute eds. application particular

These concerns have the case of prayer per- school officials, whose effort to monitor will be inducing participation they might ceived the students as reject. Though otherwise the efforts of the school officials ground appear in this case to find common to have been a good-faith attempt recognize aspects to the common of reli- gions precedents permit and ones, not the divisive our do not composing prayers officials to school assist as an incident Engel ato formal exercise for Vitale, their students. v. supra, precedents at 425. And these same caution us to against religion the idea a measure of civic the central mean- ing Religion of the Amendment, Clauses First which is that all creeds must be tolerated none favored. The suggestion government may establish official an or civic religion avoiding as a means of the establishment of a reli- gion specific with more creeds strikes us as a contradiction accepted. that cannot be degree

The of school involvement here made it clear that graduation prayers imprint bore the of the State put school-age objected thus position. children who in an untenable position our

We turn attention now to consider the prayer of the students, both those who desired the and she who did not. speech

To endure the of false ideas or offensive content part learning and then to counter it is of how to live in a pluralistic society, society upon open which insists dis- citizenry. course towards the of a end tolerant And toler- argued It is obligation. mutuality of some presupposes anee society requires con- a free vision constitutional that our which reject ideas accept ability or to own our fidence gradua- high school at a prayer approve, dowe By the time choice. offer nothing than more does tion been no doubt high students school seniors, they are complete and to assemblies classes to attend required or they distasteful find ideas to them exposing assignments background, Against this these. or all absurd immoral justice be measure odd an may consider students ideas educations their course during the subjected brief,, denied irreligious, but offensive deemed return. offers ceremony school prayer formal a fun- overlooks It prevail, however. cannot argument This the Constitution. dynamic of damental speech and protects Amendment First by ensur protected Speech is mechanisms. different quite partici government when even expression ing full its important most of our object of some very pates, adopt an idea government to persuade the speech is (1987); also see 465, 480-481 S. 481 U. Keene, v. Meese own. (1990); 1, 10-11 S.U. California, Bar v. State Keller (1977). S.U. Ed., Bd. Detroit Abood worship and freedom freedom protecting method In reli reverse. quite the religious matters in conscience prime a is not government expression the or gious debate religious establishment deemed Framers the participant, Clause Exercise Free The of all. freedom the antithetical worship has close that and conscience of a freedom embraces Amendment, First the provisions speech in the parallels prohibition specific ais Establishment but pre no religious affairs in intervention of state forms Buckley Valeo, v. provisions. speech counterpart in cise curiam). ex (1976) (per n. 127 92-93, 1,S.U. 424 history that was lesson in the lies planation in that lesson Clause, inspiration for 592 begin might ex- government as a tolerant what

the hands of policy may religious to indoctri- end in pression views grave orthodoxy puts at A state-created nate and coerce. are the sole which and conscience of belief that freedom risk imposed. religious real, not faith is assurance urgent in the are as Amendment of the First The lessons century it was written. when 18th world as in the modern subjected to state- if citizens are timeless lesson is that One its own sponsored disavows exercises, State respect sphere con- guard inviolable duty people. To mark a free which is science and belief deny today principle our own compromise be to would urge standing to secure others and forfeit our tradition protections for themselves. of that tradition heightened con before, there As we observed protecting from subtle freedom of conscience cerns with secondary public elementary pressure coercive in Schempp, g., of Abington v. e. School Dist See, schools. (1963) concurring); (Goldberg, Edwards v. 203, U. S. J., (1987); Aguillard, Board Ed. 578, 584 482 U. S. of Westside 66) (Dist. Mergens, Community U. S. Schools v. (1990) concurring). decisions in J., Our 261-262 (Kennedy, (1962), Engel Dist. Vitale, and School U. S. prayer among things, Abington, supra, recognize, other carry particular of indirect in risk exercises schools may to the context not be limited coercion. concern County pronounced schools, See but it is most there. Allegheny Union, Civil Liberties Greater v. American Pittsburgh Chapter, J., at 661 concur S., 492 U. (Kennedy, ring judgment dissenting part). part What to nothing than believers more a reasonable most seem religious prac request respect that the their nonbeliever may appear in a school context to the nonbeliever tices, machinery attempt employ dissenter to be an orthodoxy. State to enforce to this case beyond circumstances the look not needWe is that fact The undeniable at work. phenomenon the see high school aof and control supervision district's school the peer as pressure, as well places ceremony graduation group or, as a attending stand students pressure, on during the invocation respectful silence maintain least, can indirect, though subtle pressure, This benediction. our culture course, compulsion. Of any overt real be as a view signify adherence remaining can silent standing or no doubt And of others. views respect the for simple or prayer have little join a desire have no persons who some do. respect those who for sign standing as a objection to a reasonable age, has who high school dissenter the for But pray in a by the State being forced is that she perception injury less is no the allow, will not conscience her manner most, of many, if not no doubt be can There real. standing remain- or act graduation, students rabbi’s participation in expression of an ing was silent religious exercise. very point was the prayer. That told dissenter, then, to ato comfort is little It signifies mere remaining silence standing or act her that, is matters What participation. than respect, rather in this dissenter reasonable conventions, given social our signified her own group exercise believe could milieu approval of it. participation or would circumstances these

Finding under violation no all that participating, with objectors in dilemma place address whether protesting. doWe implies, adults, mature citizens are acceptable the affected if choice the Estab- consistent not, the State but we think secondary chil- school primary place Clause, lishment supports psychology position. Research dren in this susceptible to are often assumption that adolescents common conformity, and that peers towards pressure their Brit- social convention. strongest in matters influence Cross-Pressures, and Parent-Peer Choices tain, Adolescent 694 (June 1963); Sociological Brown, & Rev. 385 Ciasen

28 Am. Multidimensionality Adolescence, Peer Pressure in The (Dec. 1985); Brown, of Youth and Adolescence J. Perceptions Peer Pressure, of Peer Con- Eicher, Ciasen, & Among formity Self-Reported Dispositions, Behavior 1986). (July Psychology Developmental Adolescents, recognize imposed consti- the State To that the choice only acknowledges unacceptable that the tutes an constraint pressure government may to enforce no more use soeial orthodoxy more than it use direct means. government’s injury action, and the rea- caused object why it, is

son Daniel Deborah Weisman setting, required participation in in effect State, a school a brief exercise is, concede, It we exercise. joining during can which the individual concentrate religion, message, her mind meditate on her own or let and the intrusion of the wander. But the embarrassment by arguing that these exercise be refuted cannot prayers, of a future, said in the similar ones to be be an affront to the de minimis character. To do so would prayers rabbi who offered them and all those for whom the recognition profound essential and of divine author- were an ity. And for the same think that the intrusion reason, we greater than the two minutes or of time consumed for so prayers prayers Assuming, that the must, like these. as we object, parent were offensive to the and the who now student secondary and, the intrusion both real in the context of a was objectors’ rights. the intru- school, violation That sought promulgating sion was in the course of pertaining to be civic nonsectarian rather to one sect than objectors. does not lessen the offense or isolation to At their best narrows their at worst increases sense number, supra, of isolation affront. at 593. See stipulation There was a in the District that attend- Court graduation promotional voluntary. ance at ceremonies Agreed App. ¶ 41, of Facts Petitioners and Statement 18. point of the a center made amicus, States, the United graduation attending the not option of arguing case, ceremony itself. or coercion any inducement excuses past for- reaches Law persuasion. all lacks argument choice a real has teenage say student toAnd malism. ex- formalistic graduation is high school her to attend commence- to attend not elect could Deborah True, treme. not allow shall diploma; we renouncing but her without ment our Everyone that in knows point. this on to turn case the graduation is one of high school our culture society ex- which rule school A significant occasions. most life’s may not point. Attendance the beside is attendance cuses a stu- apparent that yet it is decree, by official required be exer- graduation the herself absent to free not is dent “voluntary,” absence for term the any sense of real cise in which intangible benefits of those require forfeiture would high youth her through and all student the motivated family clos- those for a time is years. Graduation school express mutual success to celebrate student the to est impressing end respect, to the all gratitude and wishes right and or her his it is person the role young upon the parts. diverse community of its and all in the duty to assume district point school is the event importance of the argue formal upon rely to States United prin- one becomes it permitted, but ought to be prayer Their conten- fail. argument must why their cipal reasons the constitu- for it were force of considerable one tion, prayers action, applied to state constraints tional many because ceremonies part these an essential meaning if there lacks significance of persons occasion an achievements that human brief, recognition, however is no spiritual essence. their apart from understood cannot suf- position interest that this the Government’s think We compliance or for- between choose to students to force fices argu- inconsistency its fundamental demonstrates feiture many of acknowledge what to fails It mentation. spiritual parents im- awas and their classmates Deborah’s religious con- perative Deborah Weisman for Daniel and was compelled societies While in some the State. formance might prevail, majority the wishes of the contin- to this is addressed of the First Amendment urged upon rejects gency us. The Constitu- the balance conformity from a exact tion forbids the State gradua- high attending price her own school as the student commands. This the calculus Constitution tion. recognition argument gives insufficient The Government’s young student. faced the real conflict of conscience regard position is that with The essence Government’s objector, importance is the occasion this civic, social private majority, action unilateral and who must take not the hereby electing religious scruples, compromising to avoid graduation First turns conventional exercise. This miss analysis First is a tenet head. It Amendment require one of its citizens cannot Amendment that State rights price of resist and benefits as the to forfeit his or her religious practice. state-sponsored ing To conformance to ceremony say apart the remain from that a student must closing opening is to risk and benediction at the invocation analogous conformity compelling to the environment in an compulsion setting, the where we have said risk classroom Engel especially high. supra, as in at 593-594 Just See Abington Dist. v. Vitale, S., v. 370 U. and School provi Schempp, S., 224-225, where we found 374 U. challenged legislation permitting a student sions within the voluntarily participation to excused from attendance practices daily prayers from inval in shield the did not those graduation ceremo idation, attendance at the the fact that voluntary legal save the nies is in a sense does not exercise. system public the school and

Inherent differences between distinguish legislature this case from session of a state (1983). considera- Chambers, Marsh v. 463 U. The S. and bene- invocation the objection to in raised we tions arguments we the respects similar many in are diction differ- obvious also are there But Marsh. in considered state of a opening of session atmosphere at the The ences. lit- leave with and enter free to are adults where legislature compare cannot any reasons number and comment tle most event one school the constraining potential of the with force and influence to attend. important the student greater far graduation school in a exercise formal of a in Marsh. we condoned prayer exercise the than dis- recognition this specific gave majority fact Marsh upholding the it in reliance on particular placed and tinction Today’s case atS., 792. U. there. prayers at issue princi- and teachers graduation, high school aAt different. the degree over high control retain pals do and must timing, speeches, the the program, the contents precise the students. decorum and dress, movements, the (1986). S. 675 Fraser, 478 U. v. No. Dist. School Bethel an invoca- state-imposed character atmosphere the In com- school clergy selected benediction tion religious exercise prayer a state-sanctioned make bine but alternative no was left student which to make and suffices Marsh is different This submit. Our violation. Amendment a First religious exercise a delicate jurisprudence remains parallel accept relied cannot we one, fact-sensitive facts between States the United by petitioners and upon decisions Our us. before now ease Marsh Abington v. Dist. supra, School Engel Vitale, distinguish school require us to Schempp, supra, context. religion implicating every action state not hold

We do People find offensive. citizens if one few or is invalid religious as nonre- well manner may all offense at take every case alone does messages, but offense ligious to endure sometimes too knowWe violation. show price anger of conscience be the even or social isolation by any reading the con- nonconformity. cases, of our But, or high too an formity case was required in this student Clause. the Establishment test of to withstand the exaction improper especially be- prayer are this case exercises compelled every practical at- sense has cause the State religious explicit participation exercise in an tendance and every singular importance student, one the to an event objecting to avoid. real alternative had no student necessity one of line- jurisprudence is of in this area

Our rights determining point a dissenter’s drawing, at what infringed State. freedom practices prohibit does not “The First Amendment by any none of the dan create measure realistic which designed prevent do not so gers and which it is which directly substantially the state in involve religion favoring mean as to have or in the exercises practical impact. true that ingful It course is of beginnings, consequences grow but great from small can ability adjudication is the the measure of constitutional willingness distinguish between real threat Schempp, Abington Dist. mere shadow.” School concurring). (Goldberg, supra, J., at 308 heritage society if it true to its Our would be less than young people, abiding concern for the values of lacked many acknowledge profound belief of adherents we place in the student’s life faiths that there must be a today morality precepts higher law we even than the of a hostility aspirations, express nor to those We no enforce. permit and all- our oath us do so. A relentless would every aspect pervasive attempt to exclude the Constitu life could itself become inconsistent with supra, (Goldberg, Abington, at 306 tion. See School Dist. of concurring). graduation recognize time and J., that, at We throughout process, there will of the educational course

599 practices, and religious values, when instances be the with interaction have some persons will Westside Ed. Board See students. of their schools 226 66) S. Mergens, U. (Dist. 496 v. Community Schools accommoda- questions of matters, often (1990). these But pre- question sole The us. before religion, are tion conducted religious exercise a whether is sented as we have where, ceremony in circumstances graduation conform. object induced who graduates young found, persuade can a school suggests that by holding Court No religious exercise. ain participate compel a student or Establish- the it is forbidden being here, done That Amendment. First the Clause ment the Court judgment of stated, the we the reasons For Appeals

Affirmed. whom with Stevens Justice Blackmun, Justice concurring. join, O’Connor Justice Estab- refinement century of review Nearly half under- clear one has distilled jurisprudence Clause lishment it- promote nor affiliate may neither standing: Government may organization, nor religious doctrine any self religious institu- any affairs of internal the itself obtrude present case principles to these application of tion. today Court. reached decision mandates I under challenge law state reviewed first Court This Ed. Board v. in Everson Clause history (1947).1 Relying on Ewing, U. S. 1 330 interpretation touched laws involving federal cases 1A few earlier States, U. S. v. United Reynolds In Clause. the Establishment considered (1890), Court Beason, U. S. Davis (1879), Court bigamy. prohibiting laws of federal context Baptist Asso- Danbury letter Jefferson’s accepted Thomas Reynolds outlined Black Justice and the Clause, prior analysis, Court’s of Es- the touchstone have become the considerations nor Neither a State Clause jurisprudence: tablishment religion, one laws which aid can pass Federal Government another. Nei- one over religion or religions, prefer aid all or Government, secretly, openly nor the Federal ther a State of organization in the affairs any religious can participate the clause Jefferson, “In the words and vice versa.2 scope and effect” of declaration of the ciation “almost as an authoritative penned S., letter Jefferson U. at 164. In that the First Amendment. 98 separation built “a wall of lines that the Establishment Clause his famous first “[t]he considered that State.” Ibid. Davis between church and legislation prohibit to the was intended... amendment Constitution... any any tenets, worship the modes of religious or support for the Roberts, case, v. 175 U. S. S., In another 133U. at 342. sect.” Bradfield Establishment Clause (1899), held it did not violate the 291 the Court caring poor patients, for hospital building Congress a for for to construct by of the Roman Catholic although hospital managed sisters was any particular church “That the influence of Church. The Court reasoned: corpora may powerful a and secular be over the members of non-sectarian clearly tion, purpose stated incorporated for a defined certain corporation into a reli surely not to convert such powers, is sufficient Id., held body.” Finally, 1908 the Court gious or sectarian at 298. using the Indians from prohibit of the Constitution” did not spirit that “the Government, religious for educa money, by their held the United States 50, 81. Quick Leupp, tion. 210 U. S. See Bear v. 2 paradigmatic practices that the examples articulated six Court prohibits: religion’ ‘establishment of clause Establishment Clause “The state nor the Federal Amendment means at least this: Neither a First aid one up pass can set can laws which Government church. Neither religion, religion over another. religions, prefer aid all or one Neither away from church person go can force nor to or to remain influence a any religion. against profess his or force him or disbelief will a belief person punished entertaining professing No can be or beliefs disbeliefs, any or or No tax in for church attendance non-attendance. amount, small, any religious activities or large support or can be levied to they institutions, they may called, or whatever whatever form adopt to practice religion. teach or Neither a state nor the Federal Gov can, openly secretly, participate any religious ernment or in the affairs of was intended law against establishment and State.’” church separation between ‘a wall erect States, Reynolds v. United (quoting at 16 S., Everson, U. agreed: (1879)). “The The dissenters 145, 164 U. S. per- complete and to create purpose... was Amendment’s activity spheres of separation manent every forbidding form of authority by comprehensively civil (Rut- 31-32 religion.” S.,U. support for aid Jackson, joined Frankfurter, dissenting, ledge, J., JJ.). Burton, (1962), consid- the Court U. S. Engel Vitale, 370

In prayer constitutionality ain time the first ered prayer selected a short aloud said public Students school. “ ‘Almighty we acknowl- God, Regents: by Board State the blessings Thy beg upon we Thee, and dependence edge our Country.’” Id., our teachers parents, our upon us, our again made writing Court, the Black, Justice at 422. power of the the use forbids Amendment First that the clear support, or influ- government control, prestige of the or practices American religious beliefs the ence “denominationally neu- prayer Although was the people. [was] part of the students on the “its observance tral” voluntary,” this violated that it Court found 430, the id., at Clause. precept of the Establishment essential government- again invalidated year the Court later, A Abing public Dist. prayer schools in School sponsored (1963). Schempp, the In Schempp, U. S. 203 ton v. Township, Abington Maryland, day Baltimore, school Pennsylvania, began reading Bible, the students Prayer, After or both. the Lord’s or recitation of prior Clause Establishment thorough the Court’s review concluded: Court cases, the v. Board Ed. Everson groups and vice versa” organizations or

Ewing, 330 U. S., at 15. directly consid- been has “[T]he years past score eight the times Court ered point, has dissenting on the only Justice one and, with legisla- all withdrew consistently clause the held that expression or the power respecting belief tive what as follows: stated The test thereof. the enactment? primary effect purpose and religion, inhibition of or the advancement either is If legislative scope of exceeds the enactment then Id., Constitution.” power as circumscribed 222. government- opening were exercises the schools’

Because found religious ceremonies, the Court sponsored religion held, primary advancement was the effect activity the Establishment violated therefore, Id., at 223-224. Clause. considered years the Court next time later,

Five Es- activity violated schools whether govern- principle that Clause, it reiterated tablishment promote or reli- “may one foster, aid, or ment against militant theory against gious or even another (1968). 97, Epperson Arkansas, 393 U. S. opposite.” effect] or primary advancement purpose [the is the “'If scope religion exceeds the the enactment of then inhibition ” power the legislative Constitution.’ as circumscribed of 222). Finding Schempp, (quoting S., at 374 U. at Id., 107 by preventing the aided Arkansas the law teaching it. evolution, invalidated of the Court past Burger the Court’s reviewed 1971,

In Chief Justice gleaned tests and found: “Three .. . decisions In 602, 612. Kurtzman, U. S. Lemon v. 403 our eases.” chal- to an Clause for a statute survive Establishment order legislative “[fjirst, lenge, have a secular the statute must primary principal be one purpose; effect must or second, its finally religion; statute the advances nor inhibits that neither entanglement government an excessive must not foster

603 ci- marks (internal quotation at 612-613 Id., religion.” rely to continued the Court Lemon, omitted).3 After tations Clause Establishment resolving in principles basic these on disputes.4 is ease the facts to principles of these Application the “invoca doubt” “no can be There straightforward. Middle Bishop at Nathan delivered blessings” of God’s tion In at 424. S., 370 U. Engel, activity.” a religious “is School avowal “is a solemn prayer the rabbi’s Engel, words the the blessings for the and supplication faith divine been has always a prayer of such nature The Almighty. whether then The question at 424-425. Id., religious.” of approval” stamp its official has “placfed] government the demonstrates, ably As the Court Id, 429. at the prayer. on at id., prayers,” official “eompose[s] the government when prayer, the deliver clergy the member 425, selects event school a public delivered the prayer has officials, and pres school and given supervised, planned, Tax 3 Walz v. was a focus entanglement, excessive prong, The final (1970), back but 664, harkens 674 City, 397 S. U. York New Comm’n of Federal Govern nor a state in Everson: “Neither example final religious any in affairs secretly, participate can, or openly ment Everson, S., at 16. 330 U. vice versa.” groups and organizations secular concern the Madisonian reflected in Everson discussion respective other’s with each interfere must authorities Complete Madison generally See and influence. of choice spheres 1953). (S. ed. Padover 298-312 In Clause cases. Establishment has decided Court Since (1983), Chambers, U. S. 783 of Marsh v. instance, the decision only one described principles basic decision not rested has Court case, recent example, most Lemon. For (Dist. 66) Mergens, Community Schools Ed. Westside Board analysis to the three-part Lemon applied (1990), Court S. 226 U. schools secondary unlawful made it Act, which Equal Access meetings. wishing to hold any student equal access deny concurring in J., (Marshall, id., opinion); Id., at 248-253 (plurality public schools activities involving religious case In no judgment). Lemon factors. the vigorously to apply failed the Court has prayer, there participate the in to attend students sures promoting advancing government is the doubt that be no can is this it us, teach prior decisions our gion.5 As reli prohibits. Constitution that the } HH —I nothing m it today I find opinion because join Court’s I the precepts Establishment essential with the inconsistent that holds precedents. The Court developed in our Clause State because the prayer unconstitutional graduation is religious exercise.” participation in a required “in effect proof Although precedents make clear our 594. Ante, at necessary prove Estab- to an not government coercion is pres- sufficient. Government it is violation, lishment Clause activity indica- obvious anis participate in a to sure religion. endorsing promoting or government is tion government from restrain enough that the not is But .it engage them religious practices: It must not compelling (Goldberg, concur J., Schempp, at S., either. See 374 U. recognized a violation repeatedly ring). has The Court predicated on coercion. not Clause of the Establishment concurring); (Douglas, Wal J., g., id., at id., See, e. 223; concur J., 472 U. S. (1985) (O’Connor, Jaffree, lace v. 38, (“The Schempp] Engel [in judgment) ring decisions statutory implicit under acknowledged coercion only fact they expressly turned schemes, but manifestly exercise” sponsoring a government was Religious (citation omitted)); Ed. & Public Committee for (“[P]roof of coer Liberty Nyquist, 413 U. S. (1973) v. 756, 786 any necessary under claim [is] element cion ... Clause”). pro Establishment attempting “conveying eon- schools scribes specifically Judeo- promotes case, religious message In this fulfill each “We strive must phrase the benediction: Christian. humbly" mercy, walk justly, love all, to do you require of us what Micah, ch. 8. Prophet the Book obviously taken from was

605 religious belief is particular religion message or a vey Allegheny County American v. preferred,” of favored Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U. S. Union, Greater Liberties Civil emphasis (internal (1989) omitted; quotation marks 573, 593 “impos[e] actually do not schools original), if the even religious activ- participate ain upon a student pressure (Dist. Community Schools Westside ity.”6 Ed. Board of of (1990) con- J., 66) Mergens, 261 U. 496 S. v. (Kennedy, judgment). concurring in curring part and prohibitions de- scope Clause’s the Establishment purposes. the Clause’s veloped law derives our case guaran- encompasses distinct two First Amendment respecting an es- law make no government shall tees—the exercise prohibiting the free religion or tablishment securing reli- purpose of the common thereof —both both Through vigorous enforcement liberty.7 gious possible scope fullest “promote assure the we Clauses, nurture the and ... liberty for all religious and tolerance of that hope of attainment best secure the which conditions (Goldberg, concurring). J., at 305 Schempp, S., 374 U. end.” through attempts to aid no doubt There conscience. jeopardize freedom government coercion right individual of each pressure diminishes subtle Even Representative Car- voluntarily to believe. what choose the Estab- during congressional over debate explained roll 6 endorses anytime government matter, course, practical aAs to conform. pressure always some will almost religious belief there placed government support financial prestige power, “When upon pressure coercive belief, the indirect particular behind approved officially reli prevailing to the to conform religious minorities (1962). Vitale, 421, 431 U. Engel v. 370 S. plain.” gion is (“‘Estab J., dissenting) (Rutledge, Everson, S., 330 U. 40 g., e. 7See, ideas, repre and coextensive correlative were exercise’ lishment* ‘free free and fundamental single great facets of senting only different (1963) 203, 227 U. S. Abington Schempp, v. 374 dom”); School Dist. of J., concurring); Wallace id., (Goldberg, J., concurring); (Douglas, (1985). 38, 50 Jaffree, U. S. rights in their na- “[T]hé are, of conscience

lishment Clause: gentlest delicacy, peculiar bear will little ture, of (1789). Cong. governmental hand.” Annals touch of beyond prohibiting gone coercion, how- decisions Our pos- recognized that “the fullest has because Court ever, liberty,” Schempp, scope at 305 S., 374 U. sible (Goldberg, concurring), than freedom entails more J., religious protects lib- Establishment Clause coercion. The guarantees grand compact erty scale; a it is a social strong religious democracy generations commu- a and a liberty. religious safeguarding nity “Our essential to —both perfectly in their belief sincere fathers seem to been patriotic, would be more members of the Church that the religious, by keeping their more the citizens the State and Religious Liberty, respective entirely separate.” functions (C. Essays Speeches Black Black 53 ed. and of Jeremiah S. in 1885)(Chief Pennsylvania).8 Justice of the Commonwealth religion mixing government can a to threat participate. government, if to even no is forced free one particular government puts imprimatur on a When the conveys religion, message to all those who it of exclusion government do beliefs.9 A cannot not adhere to the favored 8 (The Engel, S., immedi U. 431 “first and most See also at Clause’s religion government ate that a union of purpose rested on the belief rel. religion”); Illinois ex destroy government degrade tends to and to 71, Cty., Champaign v. Board Ed. School Dist. No. McCollum (1948) (“[T]he 203, 212 upon premise that U. S. Amendment rests First lofty aims if religion government work achieve their both can best to sphere”). respective each is left free from the other within its government infringed when the makes Establishment Clause “[T]he political in the person’s standing com adherence to relevant munity. particular reli government endorsing religion Direct or a action message practice gious approach is invalid because sends under this they outsiders, political to nonadherents not full members they community, accompanying message adherents are in and an Jaffree, political community.” Wallace v. siders, favored members of the (O’Connok, J., (internal S., quotation judgment) concurring 472 U. at 69 omitted). marks are created equal that all persons belief on the be premised Only “[ajnguish, some. that God prefers it asserts when zealous “when religious strife” result bitter hardship obtain the Govern- one another struggl[e] groups see also 429; S., 370 U. Engel, of approval.” ment’s stamp Felton, 473 U. S. v. 622-623; Aguilar S., Lemon, 403 U. a struggle Such (1985) concurring).10 (Powell, J., Walz breaking point.” to the system a political can “strain (1970) 664, 694 York 397 U. S. City, New Tax Comm’n J.). Harlan, (opinion itself a role arrogates the government When of democracy. its obligation guarantor affairs, it abandons dissent, of dialog the nourishment Democracy requires divine au- an ultimate its trust faith puts while religious the govern- When human deliberation. all above thority rational de- it “transforms truth, ment appropriates Free Nuechterlein, Note, The decree.” theological bate into Under Accommodation Permissible Boundaries Exercise (1990). Yale L. J. Clause, 99 the Establishment the policy no are questioning disagree longer who Those authority but rules of higher elected the of the judgment beyond reproach. is who itself way: religion, even if it calls it this “a expressed Sigmund Freud belong unloving to do not love, and those who must be hard religion the (1922). Analysis Ego 51 Psychology the Freud, Group and to it.” S. theory strongly in his “Memorial and even more the

James Madison stated “It providing tax funds to teachers: against a bill Remonstrance” opinions all those in Reli equal rank of Citizens whose degrades the from may Legislative authority. Distant as it gion do not bend to those the only in form, Inquisition it differs from it de be, from the present in its step, the last in the career intoler first the other gree. The one is the Madison, power Religion has not lost its Complete 303. ance.” The -repro engender “Of all the issues the ACLU takes to divisiveness. on— conditions, in discrimination, jail prison abuse of kids rights, ductive schools, brutality, name a far the most volatile police few — prayer. efforts to abolish the death Aside from our issue is of school Parish, Graduation only that elicits death threats.” penalty, it is the issue 1991). (June/July Bar Prayer Rights, Bill of 4 Utah J. 19 Violates the use would who officials government warned Madison com- “exceed ends pursue secular authority to Ty- authority are they their derive which from mission by laws governed it are submit People who The rants. authority derived by an themselves, nor neither made Remonstrance Memorial slaves.” them, and Complete (1785), Mad- Religious Assessments against government will 1953). (S. Democratic ed. Padover ison persuasion as replaces proclamation long when last not exchange. political medium “[r]eligion flourishes recognized that Likewise, we Government].”11 aid of than with purity, without greater variety of beliefs awide as room “make To at 309. Id., necessary,” deem man spiritual needs as creeds government (1952),the 306, 313 Clauson, 343 S.U. Zorach gov When any of them. one align itself must the disadvan religion sect, particular favors ernment religion favored even but obvious, others tage all secularism.” a corrosive “taint[ed]. . with . being may fear 373, 385 S.U. Ball, 473 Rapids v. Grand Dist. School politi compromised as religion (1985). The favored pur own religion’s for their reshape beliefs figures cal brings largesse government may be reformed poses; the hands Keeping regulation.12 government religious choice intrusion state groups minimizes private according religion to “flourish each enables best vehicle primarily Clause was view Roger Williams. initially by expounded was protecting churches sturdy if fences the churches might . consume . . “[W]ordly corruptions Howe, and The Garden M. maintained.” were not a'gainst the wilderness (1965). thé-Wilderness nature, I do of this an alliance religion contracts when a 12"EB]ut man should who a error same it commits the that affirm hesitat&to obtaining power a welfare; and in present to his future sacrifice his its own.” rightfully authority which that claim, it risks no it has which 1900). (H. transí. Reeve Democracy in America Tocqueville, 1 A. de appeal dogma.” Zorach, of its and the adherents zeal of its S., at 313. U. understandings that our Es- and fears underlie these It is jurisprudence. have believed We tablishment Clause of a free demo- religious exist the absence cannot freedom government government, cannot en- such and that cratic political and the is fusion between dure when there religious freedom cannot regime. have believed We community religious a vibrant the absence of thrive in prosper community it is bound cannot when that such were the ani- that these have believed And we secular. adoption mating principles of the Establishment behind government prohibited eases have end, To that our Clause. sponsorship, religion, active involve- endorsement religion, or not citizens were coerced whether ment in conform. jurisprudence is not mis- that our

I remain convinced requires guided, decision reached it affirming join today. Accordingly, I Court Court Appeals. judgment Court whom Stevens Souter, with Justice

Justice join, concurring. O’Connor Justice agree opinion, fully join

I the whole of the Court’s indirectly graduation prayers ceremonies co- school separately I write nonetheless erce observance. analysis that -underlie two issues of Establishment my independent of this whether the Clause resolution case: practices applies governmental that do not favor one reli- gion or denomination over and whether state coer- others, conformity, over cion and above state endorse- necessary religious exercise or belief, ment of element anof Establishment Clause violation. f—i

Forty-five years ago, princi- this Court a basic announced strayed: ple of constitutional law from which has not 610 that practices only state not forbids Clause

Establishment another,” religion over prefer one religion ... “aid one Board v. Everson religions.” all that “aid those also but that (1947). Today reaffirm we Ewing, 1, 15 U. 330 S. Ed. of forbids Clause Establishment holding the that principle, settings no matter public school prayers in state-sponsored barring the may In be. prayers the nondenominational how prayers where generically theistic sponsoring from State a line to true ones, we hold sponsor sectarian not could case, adequate historical is no there which precedent from depart. A appli- consistently the Clause held we have Everson, Since gener- religion favoring acts governmental less no cable Thus, others.1 favoring over one ally to acts than pub- (1962), the that we held 421 U. Vitale, S. Engel v. any readings of subject students their lic schools at 430. Id., “denominationally neutral.” prayer, however (1985),we U. S. recently, Jaffree, v. in Wallace More passed for statute moment-of-silence an Alabama held voluntary prayer to “returning purpose of sole even violated id., schools,” any particu- pray to encourage students to though it did not underlying principle has “when deity. We said lar has Court litigation, the crucible examined been freedom the individual unambiguously concluded embraces Amendment First protected conscience Id., all.” or none any faith right to select held, conclusion, we This at 52-53. respecting only the interest from support not

“derives also conscience, but freedom the individual’s respect worthy religious beliefs conviction faithful, voluntary choice product of free (1982) (subjecting discrimination S. 228 Valente, 456 U. Cf. Larson scrutiny). of strict test organizations against certain political inter- recognition fact that

and beyond forestalling extends intoler- intolerance est among among even intolerance sects—or Christian ance disbeliever encompass ‘religions’ intolerance —to omitted). (footnotes 53-54 Id., at the uncertain.” 1 Monthly, Bullock, 489 U. S. Inc. v. in Texas Likewise, only benefiting exemption (1989), a state tax struck down we question though the statute periodicals; even religious majority of the among sects, a no discrimination worked religious publications preference for found Court “effectively belief.” endorses kinds other over all J., 28 opinion); id., at (plurality see at 17 Id., (Blackmun, (“Astatutory dis preference judgment) concurring in basic under our most ideas offends semination is all about Clause standing Establishment what the intolerable”). v. Torcaso constitutionally And hence provision of (1961), struck down we 488 Watkins, 367 U. S. to de officials requiring Maryland Constitution reason God,”’ 489, id., the existence ‘“belief in clare a Amend Religion First ing Clauses under that, can the Federal Government... nor “neither State ment, requirements aid impose which constitutionally pass laws or 495. See id., at against ...,” religions non-believers as all (“The (1968) 97, U. 104 Epperson Arkansas, S. 393 v. also neutrality be governmental mandates First Amendment religion religion, and nonre- religion between tween Schempp, 203, S. Abington 374 U. v. ligion”); School Dist. of (1963) (“this unequivocally rejected the con has Court 216 only govern forbids Clause tention another”); religion id., at 319- preference over of one mental (the applies (Stewart, dissenting) “to each of Clause J., Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist or or us, be he Jew Christian Freethinker”). elsewhere, as we should Here, law. is the settled Such compelling See reason to discard it. it absent some stick to (1984); Payne v. Rumsey, 467 U. S. Arizona eoneurring). (1991) J., 808, 842 (Souter, Tennessee, U. S. B reading Es- precedent challenged this Some promo- state “nonpreferential” permit Clause tablishment originally argue challengers that, religion. The tion of “[t]he Establishment Framers, understood neutrality between government require did not Government the Federal prohibit irreligión nor did religion.” Wallace, nondiseriminatory aid to providing from supra, dissenting); Cord, also R. see J., (Rehnquist, and Current Fact Historical Separation State: of Church position, (1988). made has been a case While Fiction our of reconsideration convincing warrant as to so not tex- history Clause’s of the in the I find indeed, law; settled supporting the argument powerful development a more tual following Everson. jurisprudence Court’s Congress with First at the arrived Madison James When Constitution, one National the proposals to amend of a series rights be none shall “[t]he of civil provisions read the of worship, shall nor belief or of abridged on account full and the shall established, nor religion any be national any pre- any manner, or on rights be equal of conscience (1789). Cong. Madison’s 434 of infringed.” 1 Annals text, Commit- long. ato Select sent language was not last did \It changed it explanation, which, House, tee of without by shall law, nor religion shall established be “no read infringed.” Id., at 729. be rights equal of conscience Whole, proposal Committee went Thence the Select Committee’s turn dissatisfied With was in which proposed Samuel adopted an language alternative “Cbngress laws make no Hampshire: shall Newof Livermore touching rights infringing conscience.” of religion, or forbidden proposal would -Livermore’s id., at 731. See and was thus having anything to with do laws

613 even broader version, but Madison’s only than far broader now under- as we scope of the Establishment than Bishop Presiding Corporation e.g., See, it. stand of of Latter-day Amos, 483 Saints Christ Jesus Church (1987) exemption legislative (upholding S.U. laws). rights obligations civil under groups certain from send- once more before the amendment rewrote House adopting, recorded without this time ing Senate, it to proposal Ames Fisher language derived debate, establishing “Congress law make no shall Massachusetts: thereof, nor shall prohibiting exercise Religion, the free or Documentary infringed.” His- rights of conscience Congress States of the United tory Federal the First Journal) (L. 1972); (Senate see 1 de Pauw ed. America (1789). Perhaps, reflection, Cong. further Annals proposal too thought Livermore’s Representatives had they suggested, perhaps, has one historian expansive, “satisfy language would not simply his worried had specifically something said wanted those who demands Levy, religion.” The Establish- L. against establishments (hereinafter (1986) Levy). know; do not We ment Clause rejected Com- the Select the House do know that we what only arguably that “no ensured version, which mittee’s preference enjoyed others, over and de- religion” an official extending prohibition es- liberately to laws a instead chose general. tablishing “religion” pro- of House sequence of the treatment this Senate’s response Senate, the confirm that

posal, to the House’s prohibition Establishment Clause’s Framers meant the the religion. September encompass nonpreferential In aid to to provisions of a number the considered 1789, Senate ultimately adopted permitted it one aid, such have would briefly language: First, it entertained this “Con- of them. establishing Religious gress or One Sect shall make no law rights Society preference the of con- others, to nor shall Documentary History, infringed.” See science rejecting two minor After Journal); 136. (Senate id., the Senate id., at proposal, see to amendments the to provision identical altogether chose dropped it protecting the clause without proposal, but House’s the Senate of record noWith ibid. conscience,” “rights of changes, but prompted these know what cannot debates, we went days the Senate later, that, six us does tell the record yet: language “Con- adopted its narrowest circle half aor establishing faith of articles no law make gress shall religion.” exercise prohibiting the free worship, or mode House proposal to sent The Senate Id., at 166. amend- constitutional other along its versions proposed. ments Bill on the work the Senate’s accepted Though much Es- version the Senate’s rejected Rights, House commit- joint conference for a called tablishment ulti- conferees agreed. The House the Senate to which tee, accept this as Senate persuading the mately out, won no “Congress make shall Religion Clauses: text of final prohibiting religion, or respecting establishment an law un- that, remarkable isWhat thereof.” free exercise proposal, Senate or the final drafts House the earliest like respecting an language limited laws is not prevailing religion,” reli- “one religion,” “a national of “a establishment re- The Framers faith.”2 specific “articles gious sect,” respecting laws by targeting suggested Some commentators very nonpreferen- adopted religion, the Framers “an” establishment rejected. they repeatedly articulation much clearer position whose tialist (1988). Yet the and State 11-12 g., Cord, Separation of Church e. R. See, evi seen as better “establishment” the word before article indefinite including non- establishment, any kind forbids the Clause dence reason, use the wished, for some had If the one. Framers preferential they could Clause, meaning for the narrow term achieve indefinite Laycock, See “religion.” before word placed it aptly have far more Intent, Original About False Claim Religion: A Aid to “Nonpreferential” (hereinafter Laycock, “Non- (1986) 875, 884-885 Mary L. & Rev. 27 Wm. Aid). preferential” deliberately rejected narrow such peatedly considered sup- state prohibition to their extended instead language and general. “religion” in port for preferen- between distinction choice Implicit their weight of establishments, which nonpreferential

tial and Lay- g.,&. See, appreciated. Framers suggests the evidence cf. Levy But 91-119. 902-906; Aid “Nonpreferential” cock, (1986). particu- Of 208-222 Freedoms Curry, First The T. efforts vividly familiar were Framers note, the lar general, nonde- impose the States later, and, Colonies ostensibly incidents other assessments nominational Levy The 1-62. generally See establishments. ecumenical by Jefferson written freedom, Virginia statute separationist re- captured the by Madison, sponsored establishments, Condemning all measures. to such sponse guaranteed broadly the statute nonpreferentialist, however any support frequent or compelled to shall man “no that religious including ministry whatsoever,” worship, place, or (1785),in Religious Establishing Freedom Act own. his (P. Lerner & R. Kurland 84, Constitution Founders’ church own support his even 1987). Forcing citizen eds. tempo- ministry those deny “the things, among other would, of their approbation an from proceeding rary rewards, which earnest additional an incitement conduct, personal Id., of mankind.” instruction for the unremitting labours Govt, will “religion & added, later general, Madison In 84. to- they are mixed less purity, greater exist both (July Livingston to E. J. Madison gether.” Letter 105,106. Constitution, 1822), Founders’ 5in under- experience Framers’ thus know we What commentator, prominent of one observation scores pref- prohibition ato confining ex- were Framers that the premise “requires aid erential thing but they one believed traordinarily drafters —that bad substantially differ- something language that said adopted attending to the repeatedly after they so did and that ent, Aid 882- cock, “Nonpreferential” of language.” Lay choice Allegheny County Liber- American Civil 883; see also Pittsburgh Chapter, Union, Greater 647- 573, ties 492 U. S. J.). since (1989) must presume, We (opinion Stevens, contrary, evidence to the is no conclusive there textual of their judg- Framers embraced significance nor neither contradicts Thus, balance, history ment.3 Es- of the settled that the reconsideration principle warrants in no general forbids support tablishment Clause or some. than for one religion less support C are, reject these considerations sufficient me, While one further animates concern nonpreferentialist position, non- one, In this contexts, including judgment. many my distinction between “sectar- some preferentialism requires be, and those that would some ian” religious practices ecumenical Establishment Clause measure, enough pass muster. the enquiry, Simply by requiring nonpreferen- tialists invite the courts to engage comparative theology. to the I can less amenable imagine subject compe- hardly (1985), Jaffree, In his dissent in Wallace v. 472 U. S. 38 The Chief nonpreferentialist partly post- rested his interpretation on the Justice early ratification actions of National from the Government. Aside (but all) willingness early of some ceremonial reli Presidents to issue gious proclamations, at which were worst trivial breaches of Establish Clause, infra, 630-631, ment seemingly preferential see he cited such treaty provision, signed by Jefferson, as a authorizing aid federal subsidi priest zation of a Roman Catholic and church for Kaskaskia Indians. S., proves much, 472 U. at 103. But for if too the Establishment permits special appropriation money of tax for the activ particular sect, virtually ities of a nothing. Laycock, forbids See “Non- preferential” Although practice Aid 915. of historical evidence can indeed furnish valuable interpretation contemporary language, aid acts only question prove public officials, like the one in no matter when serve, they eye infra, can turn a blind principle. constitutional See at 626. deliberately to be judiciary, or more federal

tenee possible. where avoided nonpreferentiality point. nicely Since case

This text, Justice judged prayer must aof Blackmun Rabbi Gutter- 5,n. ante, observes, pertinently “ mercy, to justly, love ‘[t]o do his exhortation drew man ” of King version straight James humbly’ the from walk point, the similarities undefinable some 8. At 6, ch. v. Mieah, a text of prayer the state-sponsored sacred a between identify with the closely the former religion so specific would to concede nonpreferentialist would a even latter if Micah’s And even Clause. the Establishment of a breach em- it still believers, generic sufficiently for most thought is the premise, so does straightforwardly theistic bodies themselves consider Many who Americans prayer. rabbi’s Framers, the several of some, like theistic; religious not plea for question Gutterman’s Rabbi who would are deists good. country’s political moral the advancement divine subjecting condemn who would nonpreferentialist Thus, liturgy Anglican say, would the graduates to, public school preference for government’s why explain the need still religion is constitutional. nontheistic over theistic say should the State problem to the it solve does Nor position would religious views; “diversity” of promote a inevitably, the government and, compel necessarily judgments about wholly inappropriate to make courts sponsor relative religions should the State number fact, In sponsor each. it should frequency which ob- Madison that. As than be even worse prospect would proclamations, religious criticizing Presidential served over religious messages tends, sponsoring practice of standard to the recommendation time, “to narrow Memoranda,” “Detached predominant Madison’s sect.” 1946) (hereinafter (E. ed. Mary Fleet Q. Wm. & Memoranda”). changed not We have “Detached Madison’s n much judiciary should days and the Madison, since centripetal political

willingly arena to battle the enter the preference pluralism leading religious to official force votes. the faith with most for

3—\ J—l theory argument that, their rest most of Petitioners permits extensive the Establishment Clause whether or not support religion, forbid the state it does not nonsectarian sponsor that coerce neither affirmations of belief support participation in nor observance. arguments supporting appreciate I of some of the the force County analysis generally Clause. See a “coercion”- J.); (opinion Allegheny, supra, 655-679 Kennedy, Establishment, Element Coercion: The Lost McConnell, (1986). adopt Mary could not But we Wm. & L. Rev. abandoning reading law, a course without our settled readily my text of the would not that, view, the original permit. extratextual Nor does the evidence meaning unequivocally odds with the textual stand so at premise existing precedent should funda inherent in that we mentally reconsider our course.

A years, invalidity Over the has declared the of Court many practices conveying noncoereive a state laws mes- sage religious example, County For in endorsement. Allegheny, supra, prominent display we forbade of a na- tivity public property; contesting scene on without the dis- accept- sent’s observation the creche coerced no one into ing supporting message proclaimed, whatever it five display Members of the Court found its as a unconstitutional Christianity. state endorsement of at Id., 589-594, 598-602. (1985), in 472 Likewise, v. U. S. 38 we struck Jaffree, Wallace requiring a down state law a moment in of silence par- classrooms not because statute coerced students to (for not), ticipate prayer in did it but the manner because

619 approval of message state “convey[ed] a enactment also 61; at see Id., public schools.” in the prayer activities judgment). Cf. concurring in J., 67-84 id., (O’Connor, (“When prestige power, S., at 370 U. Engel Vitale, v. par- placed a behind government is support of financial upon pressure coercive indirect religious belief, the ticular officiallyap- prevailing conform religious minorities underlying the purposes plain. But the religion is proved that”). than go further much (1968), invali we U. Arkansas, 393 S. Epperson v. In theory teaching Darwin’s that barred law a state dated obviously did though statute even because, evolution any participate religion or support anyone to coerce religious singularly enacted was practice, it religious 578, 593 S. Aguillard, 482 U. v. Edwards also See purpose. science” “creation (statute (1987) instruction requiring Amendment”). the First violation religion in “endorses U. S. Rapids Ball, 473 v. Grand Dist. in School And sent whereby the State program (1985), we invalidated stu to instruct parochial schools teachers public school the scheme nonreligious matters; while ostensibly dents religious or subsidize anyone to receive clearly not coerce did things, among other because, invalid held instruction, we inherent and state of church symbolic union “[t]he support message convey state [program] threatens public.” 397; Id., general and to religion to students (plu at S., U. Monthly, Bullock, Inc. also Texas see publi only benefiting (tax exemption rality opinion) belief”); at 28 id., “effectively endorses cations (exemption uncon judgment) concurring in J., (Blackmun, support preferential “engaged in because State stitutional messages”). religious of communication perfectly always drawn not precedents Our support the however, They simply cannot, straight lines. necessary to a success- showing of coercion position that claim. Clause ful

B provisions process Like the “due” and “unrea about language the constitutional seizures, sonable” searches and religion” forbidding “respecting an of laws establishment virtually pellucid. everyone acknowledges that not But religion of bans more than formal establishments support is, massive for reli sense, the traditional state gion through, among comprehensive other schemes means, generally Levy (discussing 1-62 such es taxation. See States). early tablishments This much Colonies rejection explicit simpler provi follows from the Framers' prohibiting sions of a either establishment “establishing religion” laws in favor of the ban on broader “respecting religion.” supra, an laws establishment See at 612-614. argue some

While the Framers added the word “respecting” simply to foreclose federal interference with religion, g., state see, Amar, establishments of e. The Bill Rights as a Constitution, 1131, 100 Yale L. J. (1991), broadly language .sweeps than more that. In “every- Madison's words, the Clause its final form forbids thing establishment, like” national see Madison’s incorporation, and, “Detached Memoranda” after 558, “everything forbids like” a state establishment.4 County Allegheny, (opinion Cf. at S.,U. sweep enough is broad that Madison J.). Stevens, congressional provisions legislative himself characterized military chaplains as unconstitutional “establishments.” Madison’s 558-559; “Detached Memoranda” see infra, 624-625, and n. 6. 4 In Ewing, Everson v. Board Ed. (1947), 330 U. S. 1 we unani

mously incorporated the Establishment Clause into thé Due Process and, by doing, Clause of Fourteenth so Amendment extended its reach Id., Connecticut, 14-16; to the actions of States. Cantwell see also (1940) (dictum). then, 310 U. S. Since one Member has proposed disincorporating Court Clause.

621 only prohibition extends petitioners insist While establishment, of incidents features “coercive” constitutional easily square that claim they cannot “respect just laws not forbids Amendment First text. “prohibiting those also religion,” but ing establishment an nonad- coerce Yet laws thereof.” exercise free any or its participate “support or to herents (opinion supra, 659-660 Allegheny, County exercise,” their violate virtually by definition J.), would Kennedy, Div., Employment See exercise. religious free right to Smith, 494 U. S. v. Ore. Resources Dept. Human “government Clause, (under (1990) Exercise Free belief”), citing Torcaso compel affirmation Memorial Madison, (1961); J. see also U. S. Watkins, 367 (1785) Religious Assessments Against Remonstrance violates religious establishments support (compelling Con Founders’ quoted 5 The Religion”), exercise “free coercion application Thus, literal 82,84. stitution, at nullity, a virtual Clause the Establishment render would test argument. oral essentially conceded petitioners’ counsel as Arg. 18. Oral Tr. of Dist. in School as we said much; presuppose cases

Our clauses two between “[t]he Abington, distinction of apparent predi- Clause Exercise Free of the violation —a violation Clause while coercion cated Lay- see also 223; at S.,U. attended.” so not be need (“If an is ... coercion “Nonpreferential” Aid cock, adds clause, establishment establishment element exercise”). may argue one While nothing free simply orna- the Establishment meant Framers Curry, Freedoms First Amendment, ef. T. the First ment reading With- resort. (1986), last abe that must 216-217 presume contrary, should we compelling evidence out something to stand the Clause meant Framers petitioners it. attribute than more

c argue political setting in which the Petitioners from the and from the Framers’ framed, Establishment Clause was following govern- political practices ratification, own constitutionally religion long so as does ment endorse conformity. setting prac- not coerce they yield canvassing, some tices warrant but while evidence petitioners’ argument, they degree not for do reveal the early thought in that would consensus constitutional raise by challenging presumption threat to stare decisis something Free Exer- Establishment Clause adds to the it. cise Clause follows adopted Religion response

The Framers Clauses to support religion, long partic tradition of coercive state for ularly special antip in the form assessments, of tax but their athy hostility coercion did not exhaust their the features and incidents of Jeffer Indeed, establishment. opposed any political appropriation son and Madison of reli gion, challenging 623-626, and, see even infra, at when they always temper hated did not assessments, their rhetoric with distinctions between coercive and state ac noncoercive example, Virginia’s gen When, tion. Madison criticized principles bill, eral assessment he invoked to all antithetical promote religion. state efforts to An assessment, wrote, he improper simply people because it forces to donate pence” religion, broadly, “three but, more because “it signal persecution. degrades itself a equal It from the opinions Religion rank Citizens all those whose do not Legislative authority.” bend to those of the Madison, J. Against Religious Memorial and Remonstrance Assessments (1785), 5in The Founders’ at 83. Constitution, Madison saw participation, that, even without the tax collector’s an official impair religious liberty. endorsement of can early Petitioners contend that because the Presidents in- religious messages inaugural cluded Thanksgiv- in their ing Day addresses, the Framers could not have meant the endorse- state forbid noneoercive however, ignores fact, argument religion. The ment controver- proclamations less today find such Americans published generation, whose founding did than sial President petitioners’ claim. belie matter thoughts on the Thanks- steadfastly to issue refused example, Jefferson, thought part he any kind, because proclamations giving Thomas Letter Religion Clauses. they violated (Jan. 23,1808), Founders’ in 5 S. Miller to Rev. Jefferson to the Reverend explaining his views at 98. In Constitution, anticipated, re- effectively Miller, Jefferson Samuel position: jected, petitioners’ pre- recommend, not only I should proposed that

“[I]t is I should is, that prayer. That fasting day & scribe indirectly authority reli- over an U. S. assume pre- directly has the Constitution which gious exercises this too meant It must them. from cluded authority, to be carry some is to recommendation disregard it; who penalty those some sanctioned degree some imprisonment, but of fine indeed not opinion.” at 98-99 Id., public perhaps in proscription original). (emphasis in practices that, state condemning such noneoercive

By religious dis majority faith, demean “recommending” the necessarily condemned opinion,” Jefferson public “in senters of reli endorsement call official we terms, modern what, in Establishment accordingly construed gion. He endorse also state coercion, but simply state not forbid opposed he And if religious and observance.5 belief ment, re that Jefferson passage shows quoted claim Petitioners “Thus, while one “coercive”: proclamations Thanksgiving garded proc recommendatory Thanksgiving view that Jefferson's disagree with that Jeffer disagree cannot one be coercive... nonetheless would lamation Amendment a First necessary element to be a coercion believed son "pro wordplay. The this 34. But Petitioners Brief for violation.” course, by public and was, of referred which Jefferson scription” to Presidential addresses for

impersonal inflicting “proscription all public the more would he have opinion,” condemned less diffuse of official expressions endorsement. his first three

During years office, James Madison also refused to call for days of thanksgiving prayer, though later, amid the turmoil 1812, of War of he did so political on four separate occasions. See Madison’s “Detached Mem- oranda” 562, and n. 54. in an retirement, con- Upon essay as an demning unconstitutional “establishment” the use of money support congressional military chap- lains, id., 558-560,6 he concluded that “[rjeligious proela- government, only whose action awas noncoercive recommendation. one can any coercion, And call only act of endorsement a form of but if willing one is the meaning to dilute of “coercion”until is meaning there no position left. Jefferson’s straightforwardly the claim contradicts showing “coercion,” any definition, under prerequisite normal to a successful time, Establishment Clause claim. At the same Jefferson’s practice, Madison’s, like page 626, diverged see sometimes infra principle, inaugural he did include references in his speeches. Inaugural See Addresses of the Presidents of the United 17, (1989); supra. States 22-23 see also n. seek also comfort in passage a different of the same letter. Petitioners argued

Jefferson proclamations just Presidential violate not Clause, Amendment, but also the Tenth “what might right be a in a government, state right was a violation of that when assumed another.” Letter from Thomas to Rev. Jefferson S. Miller (Jan. 23,1808), (P. in 5 The Founders’ & Constitution 99 Kurland R. Lerner 1987). not, eds. however, Jefferson did restrict himself to the Tenth Amendment in condemning proclamations such by a national I officer. do not, any event, in petitioners understand to arguing be that the Establish- ment exclusively Clause is provision respective mediating structural the powers of the State and position National Governments. Such would entail argument, the petitioners make, which do not and which we would certainly reject, almost incorporation of the Establishment Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was erroneous. 6Madison practice palpable found this “a violation of... Constitutional principles.” Madison’s Although “Detached Memoranda” 568. he sat on the recommending committee congressional Cord, the chaplainship, see R. Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction 23 thanksgivings & recommending by the Executive mations legislative acts the with root same the from shoots fasts reli- they imply a only, recommendations Altho’ reviewed. politi- delegated to trust part the making of no agency, gious of “[t]he members Explaining that Id., 560. rulers.” cal possessing an regarded as be sense, in no can . . . a Govt religious ca- their in Constituents advisory their from trust necessar- the state observed he further ibid., pacities,” ones: political messages with itsof ily freights all be religion, whatever with [is] associated policy idea “the latter the a function when occasion, mode omitted). (footnote Id., at power.” in those assumed principles in the pace his keep with to failure Madison’s principles. erase cannot pressure congressional face made had he explained that backsliding, and admitted He inconsequential proclamations wartime of his content ibid.; see See impropriety. their mitigate much enough to 10,1822), (July Livingston E. Madison from J. Letter also writings his While 105. Constitution, at The Founders’ 5in Estab- interpretation his suggest variations mild respect no different was Clause, Madison lishment expressed he That generation. political of his rest from proc- constitutionality about doubt much so separationism suggests a brand however, lamations, jurispru- traditional in our embodied stronger than that even public subsidies characterization his does too So dence. “es- unconstitutional military chaplains as legislative and 6, for page, n. and this supra, at 624 tablishments,” see general view expansive their courts, however federal practices. See upheld both Clause, the Establishment chap- (1983) (legislative U. S. Chambers, 463 Marsh my approbation, not was that “it (1988), later insisted he place took jurisdiction] from civil immunity of [the from deviation Natl. Treas- paid from Chaplains, they appointed when Congs., in 5 10,1822), (July Livingston E. J. Madison ury.” Letter Constitution, 105. at Founders’ 626 1985) (CA2 (military

lains); Marsh, F. 2d Katcoff chaplains). Republic engaged young sure,

To be the leaders of practices separationists some like Jefferson Congress The First did hire institu- Madison criticized. chaplains, supra, at Chambers, 788, and tional see Marsh v. Washington unapologetieally marked Presidents Adams “ ” days prayer,’ Sep- ‘publicthanksgiving see Cord, R. (1988). Yet in aration of Church and the face State practices prove, separationist best, those at that the dissent, understanding simply Framers did not share a common they, and, worst, like other Clause, day politicians, ideals and turn could raise constitutional one by provi- their backs on them the “Indeed, next. rights sions of the state become what bills had Madison ‘paper parchments’ expressions called mere of the most — sentiments, laudable observed as much in the breach as in practice.” Origins Religion Kurland, The Clauses (1986) Mary Constitution, 27 Wm. & Rev. L. (footnote omitted). Sometimes' National Constitution years proposing no fared better. Ten after the First Congress passed Amendment, the Alien and Acts, Sedition patently measures unconstitutional modern standards. early Congress’s political If the actions determinative, were merely meaning, and not relevant, evidence of constitutional gut we would have to our current First Amendment doctrine political censorship. to make room for While we be unable to know certain what the Framers meant Clause, we do that, know around the respectable body opinion sup- time of its ratification, ported considerably reading petitioners urge broader than upon consistency us. This with the textual considerations enough preclude fundamentally reexamining our settled accordingly law, considering and I am left with the task of practice whether the state here issue violates our tradi- understanding proscriptions. tional of the Clause’s

627 HH HH neutrality is concept of s Clause Establishment While spe with invested eases self-revealing, our recent not reli either endorse favor not State content: cific religion others. over nonreligion or one generally over gion 598- 589-594, atS., Allegheny, U. 492 County g., e. See, of id., opinion); (plurality 17 at Monthly, S.,U. 489 Texas 602; v. Edwards judgment); concurring in J., at 28 (Blackmun, Rapids, Grand Dist. School 593; S., at U. 482 of Aguillard, 61; atS.,U. 472 Jaffree, v. Wallace 389-392; atS.,U. 473 Disaggregated Substantive, Laycock, Formal, see also (1990); 993 L. Rev. Religion, DePaul Neutrality Toward (1971). This 602, 612-613 U. S. Kurtzman, v. Lemon cf. become has endorsement against favoritism principle ensuring jurisprudence, foundation standing every citizen’s irrelevant religious belief supra, Allegheny, County community, see political in Against Re Remonstrance Madison, Memorial 594;J. Constitution, (1785), Founders’ in 5 ligious Assessments demeaning effects religion from protecting 82-83, in the Now, as 83. id., at embrace, see any governmental greater Govt, exist “religion will both & Republic, early J. together.” Letter they are mixed less purity, the 10,1822), The Founders’ (July in 5 Livingston E. Madison liberty, religious em aspiration to Our Constitution, at 106. standard. other permits no Amendment, the First bodied A of reli matters neutral remain must government That ac religion taking into ever it from foreclose gion does exercise free may “accommodate” State count. rules applicable generally relieving people from g., Corpo callings. See, e. religious their that interfere Christ Jesus Bishop Church Presiding ration (1987); also see S. 483 U. Amos, Latter-day v. Saints Contrary (1963). to the S.U. Verner, 374 Sherbert necessarily views of such some,7 accommodation does not signify an official endorsement observance over disbelief. everyday routinely life,

In we accommodate be- inviting liefs that we do not share. A an Orthodox Christian might pains restaurant; Jew to lunch to choose a kosher take hurry might yield right way in a an atheist of to an steering carriage. acting, Amish man a In horse-drawn so respect express for, of, we but not endorsement the funda- expressing posi- mental values of others. We act without theological religious tion on the merit of or of those values general, perceives belief in and no one us have taken such position. government may religions act encour likewise. Most age practices devotional that are at crucial to the once lives idiosyncratic eyes of believers and in the of nonadherents. By general application definition, secular rules of are drawn vantage consequently, from the and, nonadherent’s fail to practices take such into account. Yet when enforcement of such rules sensibilities, cuts across as it often does, puts taking affected to the those choice of sides between government. God and In such circumstances, accommodat ing religion nothing beyond recognition gen reveals unnecessarily eral rules can offend the conscience they society when offend the conscience of secular not at all. (1970)(plurality Welsh States, Cf. v. United 398 333, 340 U. S. opinion). freeing Thus, the Native American Church forbidding peyote Drug federal laws use, see Enforce Exemptions, ment Administration Miscellaneous 21 CFR 7See, e.g., Thomas v. Review Bd. Employment Security Indiana of Div., (1981) 707, 450 (Rehnquist, J., U. S. 726 dissenting); Choper, Religion Clauses of Reconciling the First Conflict, Amendment: 41 U. 673, Pitt. L. Rev. (1980); Walz v. Tax Comm’n New 685-686 also see City, York Verner, 664, (1970); 397 U. S. Sherbert v. 668-669 398, 374 U. S. (1963) 414, (Stewart, 416 J., concurring result); Jaffree, cf. Wallace v. S.,U. at (O’Connor, J., concurring judgment). conveys endorsement no (1991), government § 1307.31 simply such; it religion as Church, rituals, peyote certain lives peyote centrality respects Boundaries Exercise Free Note, The See Americans. Establishment Under Accommodation Permissible (1990). 1127,1135-1136 J.L. Yale Clause, 99 B per- scope accommodation define else Whatever requirement is Clause, one under missible burden a discernible lift must accommodation clear: supra, Allegheny, County See religion. exercise free concurring in J., 631-632 id., at 51; 601, n. (O’Connor, at Presiding Corporation judgment); concurring in part judg- concurring in J., supra, at Bishop, (O’Connor, 18-19, n. Monthly, supra, at ment); Texas also see n. 45. supra, 57-58, Jaffree, opinion); Wallace (plurality 663, n. 2 supra, Allegheny, County (Kennedy, see But part). dissenting in part and in judgment concurring in J., in the religious individuals position of for the Concern justify solicitude official cannot regulatory State modern general rules; such practice unburdened religious for religion dis- effectively over favor largesse would gratuitous sponsoring easily in that, sees lights By one these belief. has crossed the State here, prayers issue graduation unconstitu- accommodation permissible line from establishment. tional omitting prayers complain that cannot Religious students any sense, ceremony realistic would, in graduation their many them callings. sure, beTo spiritual their “burden” significance, spiritual but passage rite this invest feelings it before religious about express may their they privately organize a They ceremony. even after company like- they desire the if sponsored baccalaureate accordingly need they have no Because students. minded beliefs, their machinery to affirm the State government’s sponsorship prayer graduation at the cere- mony reasonably is most understood as an official endorse- religion religion. ment of and, instance, of theistic may fairly say, suggested, One as one commentator has government brought prayer ceremony “precisely into people symbolic gov- because some awant affirmation that approves religion, ernment and endorses their and because many people place who want this affirmation little or Laycoek, no value costs minorities.” Summary Synthesis: Religious Liberty, The Crisis in (1992).8 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. by arguing

Petitioners would deflect this conclusion graduation prayers are no different from Presidential reli- gious proclamations “acknowledgments” and similar official religion public life. But invocations in Thanksgiving Day rarely ig- like, addresses and the noticed, conveyed impersonal nored effort, without over an medium, particular, pallid and directed at no one inhabit zone apart prayers captive worlds from official delivered to a audi- ence of school students and their families. Madison respected himself the difference between the trivial and the practice. serious in Realizing constitutional that his con- 8If the graduation State had chosen day speakers according wholly criteria, (not secular actor) speakers and if one of those a state had individ- uaily chosen to religious message, deliver a it would have been harder to attribute an endorsement Washington to the State. Cf. Witters ept. Blind, D (1986). Services U. S. 481 But that is not our case. Nor is this a case has, where the singling State without out reli gious groups individuals, extended benefits to them as members of a broad class of by clearly beneficiaries defined secular criteria. See Vincent, (1981); Walz, Widmar v. supra, 263, U. S. 274-275 at 696 J.) (“In (opinion Harlan, any particular question case the critical is whether legislation circumference of encircles a class so broad it that can fairly be concluded that religious institutions could be thought to fall perimeter”). within the Finally, natural Marsh v. this is not a like case Chambers, (1983), 463 U. S. government in which spirit invoke officials inspiration ual entirely for their own benefit directing any without reli gious message they at the citizens lead. Clause unlikely the Establishment take to temporaries were sug- chaplainship, he legislative forgo a enough to seriously beyond landmarks step “[rjather let than gested that be precedent, will legitimate of a the effect power have curat non aphorism minimis legal de apply it the better see also 559; Memoranda” “Detached Madison’s . .” . . lex 1822), (July in Livingston 10, to E. J. Madison Letter logic per- But that 105. at Constitution, Founders’ 5 The When question here. practice in winking no mits authority, State’s with the armed officials, school they students, religion their convey endorsement an How- Clause. Establishment of the core near strike flatly they messages are be, their “ceremonial” ever unconstitutional. Justice, Jus- ChieF whom Scalia,

Justice dissenting. join, Thomas Justice White, and tice recognizing opinion joined an ago, I Terms Three light of the construed be must Clause Establishment acknowledgment, accommodation, policies “[government part accepted our [that] an support for opinion affirmed heritage.” That political cultural by reference determined to meaning the Clause “the “[a] understandings.” said It practices and to historical Establishment protections of implementing test consistency, invalidate would applied with if that, Clause reading proper abe cannot traditions longstanding Liberties Civil Allegheny American County Clause.” 657, Chapter, 492 U. S. Pittsburgh Union, Greater part dis- concurring judgment in (1989) J., (Kennedy, part). senting today’s joining me from prevent course views These any reference conspicuously bereft

opinion, which prohibits holding history. that the In cer- graduation public school benedictions invocations doing it is nary mention Court —with emonies, 632 grad public school lays as old as that is a tradition waste so— component of an that is a themselves, ceremonies

uation of nonsectarian tradition longstanding American more even generally. in As its prayer celebrations to God engineer of its social the bulldozer destruction, of strument boundlessly manipu ing, boundless, invents the Court promises do psychological coercion, which lable, test rule did for the Durham Clause what the Establishment States, 94 U. S. insanity v. United Durham See defense. (1954). Today’s opinion shows App. 2d 862 F. 228, 214 D. C. why argumentation our forcefully than volumes more Constitution, our protection, that fortress which Nation’s pred changeable philosophical upon possibly rest cannot deep have must Court, but Justices ilections of the people. practices of our the historic foundations in I history page is worth aphorism “a Holmes’ Justice Eisner, logic,” 256 U. S. Trust v.Co. New York a volume (1921), particular Establish applies to our force with 345, 349 recognized, in our jurisprudence. we ment As Clause “compor[t] terpretation should Clause the Establishment contemporaneous history under with what reveals was Donnelly, Lynch 465 U. S. standing guarantees.” v. of its (1984). per “[T]he between must draw line we his impermissible which accords one missible and the understanding tory the Found faithfully reflects the Schempp, Abington ing Dist. v. Fathers.” School (1963) “[Historical (Brennan, concurring). J., 203, U. S. only in light on what draftsmen evidence sheds how mean, but also on tended the Establishment contemporaneous prac they applied” thought that Clause (1983). Thus, 783, 790 Chambers, U. S. tices. Marsh beginning life of a “[t]he Nation’s existence from the constitutionality [while] .[,] . . practice, of its not conclusive interpretation” import in the fact is a of considerable York New Tax Comm’n v.Walz Clause. of concurring). (1970)(Brennan, J., City, 664, U. S. replete with our history of Nation tradition and pe thanksgiving and featuring prayers of public ceremonies amply provided point been this of Illustrations tition. supra, 674-678; g., Lynch, at opinions, see, e. prior our v. Jaffree, also Wallace supra, 786-788; see at Marsh, dissenting); Engel (1985) J., 38, 100-103 U. S. (Rehnquist, (1962) (Stewart, J., 446-450, and n. 421, U. S. Vitale, 370 history to our oblivious is so dissenting), since the Court but “preservation restricts suggest Constitution toas private to the beliefs ... of transmission necessary provide another appears sphere,” ante, brief account. prominent origin, prayer been has our Nation’s

From proclamations. governmental ceremonies part of marking our Independence, the document of Declaration Judge Supreme “appealed] separate people, aas birth and avowed our intentions” of for the rectitude the world In protection of Providence.” divine “a firm reliance swearing office oath his inaugural address, after his first prayer deliberately Washington made George Bible, aon President: act as part official first his first “[Ijt improper peculiarly to omit would Almighty supplications to that my fervent act official presides in the who Being universe, who rules over sup- providential aids can and whose of nations, councils may conse- every His ply defect, benediction human people happiness of the the liberties and crate by themselves instituted a Government United States Inaugural purposes.” Addresses essential for these 101-10, Doc. States, S. United the Presidents (1989). p. 2 of inau- feature been supplications have a characteristic

Such example, gural Jefferson, Thomas ever since. addresses Infinite “[M]ay address: inaugural in his first prayed lead our the universe destinies rules the which Power issue a favorable them best, give to what councils Id., inau- In his second 17. and prosperity.” your peace for divine his need acknowledged address, Jefferson gural his to join prayer: his audience and invited guidance hands whose Being need, too, favor “I shall their old, as Israel fathers, led our are, who we with flowing in a country them land and planted native covered has life; who comforts necessaries all the our years riper His our infancy providence I goodness to whose and and power, His wisdom with will so me that He with to in supplications ask you join coun- servants, their guide your of minds enlighten they that whatsoever measures their cils, and prosper to you shall secure and result in your good, do shall Id., all nations.” and approbation friendship, peace, at 22-23. address, inaugural his in first Madison, James

Similarly, confidence his placed Almighty of that and guidance

“in the guardianship nations, destiny regulates whose Being power dispensed been so conspicuously have blessings whose to arewe bound to whom and rising Republic, to this as our well our the past, devout gratitude address for the future.” best hopes fervent supplications Id., 28. es- tradition Bush, continuing President recently,

Most attending asked those President Washington, tablished by his made heads, prayer to their his bow inauguration Id., at 346. act as first official President. dates likewise Thanksgiving national celebration

Our Lynch: As recounted we to Washington. back President proposed, was Amendment day the First after “The proclaim Washington 'a urged President Congress prayer, observed to be thanksgiving and day public signal many and grateful hearts the acknowledging with Washington pro- Almighty President God.’ favours thanksgiving day 26, 1789, November claimed Great Lord supplications to the prayers and ‘offe[r]our pardon our Him beseech Nations, and Ruler S., at transgressions 465 U. other national omitted). (citations 675, n. their Thanksgiving Proclamations —with tradition

This been gratitude prayerful to God—has religious theme of 2nn. every 675, and Id., at President. almost adhered J., supra, 100-103 Jaffree, 3; and Wallace (Rehnquist, dissenting). also Federal Government branches two

The other prayer at events. practice of long-established have opened congressional have sessions Marsh, detailed As we Congress. 463 prayer since First chaplain’s ever awith sessions own this Court’s And 787-788. S., at U. opened United States save the “God the invocation days Mar- Justice of Chief since Court” this Honorable Supreme States United Court Warren, C. shall. 1 (1922). History public prayer at general tradition of to this

In addition specific of invoca- tradition a more ceremonies, there exists graduation public exercises. school at benedictions tions and graduation high cere- public school By first account, one very July 1868—the mony place in Connecticut took (the Amendment happens, Fourteenth that the as it month, applied has been Clause Establishment which the vehicle States) from the seniors “15 against was ratified —when Sunday Academy suits in their best marched Free Norwich majestic through and waited a church hall into dresses Brodinsky, Rites long prayers.” Commencement music and Updat- Study Shows, 10 AAll, At 10-Week Not Obsolete? 1979). theAs (Apr. p. 3 4, Policies, No. ing Board School “customary describing the acknowledges in obliquely Court re- as 583, at graduations, ante, high school features” and benediction invocation contest, the not spondents do any other traditional recognized be “as long been have widely are program and graduation [school] parts of the Activities McKown, Commencement H. established.” Brodinsky, supra, (1931): at 5. also see

HH f—I graduation invo separate presumably would Court public instances other and benedictions cations on beliefs” “preservation and transmission I it find “psychological coercion.” they ground involve our embarrassment a sufficient County Al holiday displays, see regarding jurisprudence Pitts Union, Greater Civil Liberties legheny v. American “requir[e] (1989), come has Chapter, burgh 492 U. S. decorators interior commonly with scrutiny associated more Congress v. judiciary.” Jewish American than 1987) (Easterbrook, (CA7 J., Chicago, 120, 2d 827 F. decorating science rock-hard ais dissenting). But interior few cita A practiced amateurs. psychology compared to particular “[rjesearch have no psychology” tions of dis cannot at precise ante, bearing upon here, issue beyond realm gone has Court guise that the the fact argu doing. they The Court’s judges know what where part take students “coerced” that state officials ment graduation ceremonies benediction invocation in the point it, put incoherent. fine a too is, says dic- facts” two “dominant identifies Court ruling and benedictions that invocations tate the Establishment violate graduation ceremonies school any relevant of them Ante, at Neither 586. Clause. sense true.

A partici- “attendance that students’ declares The Court benediction] in a fair and [invocation are pation in the exactly “fair obligatory.” is this But what Ibid. real sense gradu- According students at Court, to the sense”? and real participa- appearance “to the fact want avoid who ation psy- are ante, 588, in the invocation benediction at tion,” pressure, peer by “public obligated as well as chologically group re- least, at maintain pressure, or, as a to stand ... prayers. during Ante, This at 593. spectful those silence” opinion very linchpin al- the Court’s assertion —the —is say intriguing as for what it what it does not most psycho- example, say, says. that students are It does not place logically their hands in heads, their coerced to bow pay prayers, prayer position, attention to Dürer-like (Perhaps pray. further intensive fact “Amen,” or in utter matters.) on these psychological be done research remains psychologically only coerced “to that students It claims respectful Ibid. silence.” at maintain or, least, stand ... (both added). disjunctive (emphasis Both halves of this appearance participation the fact or must amount to which analysis prayer is to survive on own if the Court’s terms) particular merit attention. begin The Court’s notion that student

To latter: “respectful during simply silence” the invocation sits in who (when standing) has others are somehow and benediction all joined— having joined perceived as would somehow be —or nothing prayers in the short of ludicrous. We indeed live surely age. vulgar conventions,” ibid., “our social in a But point anyone who have not coarsened does reasonably on his chair and shout obscenities can stand everything pres- be deemed have assented to said his dispute ex- Since the Court does not that students ence. posed graduation prayer (despite at ceremonies retain 588) pressures,” ante, sit, “subtle coercive the free will to absolutely ante, ef. there is no for the basis Court’s dis- say reasonable “a that enough to fanciful It is decision. heads, “could of bowed a class standing erect head senter,” participa- signified own her group exercise the that believe absurd beyond the is It it,” ibid. approval of or tion pointedly while belief such entertain could say she that declining to rise. nonparticipat- the very worst, that the us assume let But that Even stand! ... “subtly coerced”

ing graduate “partici- remotely establish disjunctive does the half ain participation”) (or “appearance of pation” an our culture acknowledges “in that The Court exercise. simple re- or a view signify adherence standing can . . . (Much more often Ibid. others.” views the spect for the perhaps in except think, I former, the than latter the standing.) votes meeting, one where town proverbial standing iswho one that inference permissible ais if it But prayers of others the respect for simply out doing so that possibly be said it can how progress, then are in that group exer- the that believe could dissenter... “reasonable ob- approval”? Quite or participation own signified her cise maintaining that moreover, may add, I viously, cannot. it funda- ais of others religious observances respect the for (including the government that civic virtue mental if it were even schools) cultivate —so should can might mistaken respect displaying of such case deny dissent- prayer, I would part in the taking partici- appearance avoiding even interest er’s false interest government’s trumps constitutionally pation generally. respect fostering given has not itself Court opinion manifests coercion. psychological test consideration careful concern hint no observe, could had, how if it For Allegiance, Pledge of for the stood students disapproval, that invocation? Rabbi Gutterman’s immediately preceded which course, no more can, government 583. The Ante, at orthodoxy. West orthodoxy than political coerce Virginia (1943). Bd. Ed. Barnette, S. U. been revised has Allegiance Moreover, Pledge since Barnette recital of God,” “under to include the phrase since to raise same would Pledge appear benediction. If students issue as the invocation to remain standing during coerced were psychologically coerced, also have been psychologically must invocation, they (and view, in the Court’s to stand for before, thereby, moments in) the Must the in or to take part Pledge. take appear part (both be barred from schools public therefore Pledge classroom)? In and from the ceremonies from graduation Barnette school student could not be we held that a public to recite the Pledge; she we did not even hint that compelled indeed, to observe respectful could not be compelled silence — stand in respectful silence —when those who wished even to that to be the next ought it did so. Logically, proj- to recite bulldozer. ect for the Court’s concludes that school high

I it that the Court also find odd subjected supposed psychologi- not be graduates from whether “mature coercion, cal refrains addressing yet Ante, at 593. that reason I had thought adults” may. an as so regarded from school is high significant graduation it associated with transition event is that is generally seniors, graduating adolescence to adulthood. young Many Why, then, to vote. does the Court course, enough are old we soon first-graders? treat them as were Will though they and that between mature distinguishes have jurisprudence immature adults?

B “dominant identified the Court is that other fac[t]” direct the of a formal officials performance religious “[s]tate Ante, at school ceremonies. at graduation exercise” 586. of a formal exercise” “Directing] performance it, has a sound of liturgy summoning up images princi- acolytes carry cross, where to directing showing pal A rabbi where to unroll the Torah. Court be professing line-drawing, ante, fact-sensitive” and “delicate engaged ain “prescribing means what describe better 597, would at even But benediction.” and an invocation content principals is that shows record theAll false. be would dele- their acting within schools, Providence invocations clergy to deliver authority, invited gated Principal in- Lee graduations; at benedictions pamphlet, two-page him provided Gutterman, Rabbi vited prepared Jews, Christians Conference by the National occasions, prayer for civic inclusive general advice giving be graduation should prayers his him advised fairly transformed can facts these How nonsectarian.' and controlled “directed Principal Lee charges that into 588, ante, at prayer,” Gutterman’s] [Rabbi the content attempted 590, ante, prayer,” “monitor officials school and that 588, ante, at prayers/” “‘compose official activity this case “government involvement Court to fathom. difficult ante, at pervasive,” suggesting that remotely nothing record in the identifies cen- screened, or edited, drafted, have ever officials school awas Gutterman that Rabbi prayers, or graduation sored mouthpiece officials. the school of harmless not course, of are, of record distortions These assertion solemn the Court’s them without error: “enforc[- perceived be reasonably to could officials school ring as hollow would orthodoxy,” ante, at

ing] ought. as it

Ill lie opinion does deeper Court’s in the flaw state- was there question whether wrong answer rather, lies, coercion; “peer-pressure” induced hinge Clause making of violation Court’s a hall- was The coercion question. precious such a of religion coercion was of establishments of historical mark religious by law support orthodoxy financial of of force the state Typically, attendance penalty. threat of only clergy church could official required; was church tolerated, dissenters, if perform sacraments; and lawfully Levy, The Establish- array L. civil disabilities. of an faced Colony (1986). example, of in the Thus, ment England established, been had Virginia, of the Church where by to the doctrine required conform law to ministers were persons England; were and all of the Church rites of Sabbath, were observe required attend church Anglican were ministers, and support of tithed for the building repairing Id., churches. costs of for the taxed at 3-4. prohibit adopted an such was Establishment Clause (and protect religion level federal

establishment interference). religion from federal establishments state argument acknowledge that, the sake I will further argued, term 1790 the “establish scholars some sup meaning acquired an additional had ment” —“financial by public generally, reflected religion taxation” —that port of multiple” establishments, not “general development But still single that would Id., at church. 8-9. limited to a will fur And I law. coerced anbe establishment force Dec tradition, that our constitutional ther concede inaugural address Independence and the first laration day, present has, quoted to the Washington, down earlier, Trinity Holy v. United see Church aberrations, a few government- (1892), out of order ruled S. 457 States, 143 U. legal when no sponsored endorsement —even "peer- no present, ersatz, even and indeed when coercion present psycho-coercion endorse pressure” —where upon specifying of details in sense sectarian, the ment is benevolent, omni in women who believe men and which known to differ world are potent and Ruler Creator Christ). (for simply example, divinity But there is no of the officially sponsored proposition that the support the for by read and benediction invocation nondenominational legally coerced recite one to no Rabbi Gutterman —with To States. the United the Constitution them —violated they characteristically American they contrary, so the Washington or George pen of the come have could himself. Lincoln Abraham general Court’s quarrel the with no I have while Thus, “guarantees that that the proposition participate or support anyone to may coerce not government no warrant I 587, see ante, at exercise,” beyond backed acts concept of coercion expanding the for happily, is that, of coercion penalty brand threat —a career amade us who readily to those discernible Freud. than rather disciples Blaekstone reading opposed coercion to indeed were Framers The worship spon- own as their but, Government; National demon- public events prayer in sorship of nonsectarian coercive; “Jsjpeech they understood strates, Congress v. Jewish American likes.” as he do listener dissenting). (Easterbrook, J., Chicago, at 2d, 827 F. perspective revealing places in discussion historical This “for all has the State extravagant claim the Court’s every practical “in 589, and ante, at purposes,” practical participate in compelled students 598, ante, at sense,” by stipulated Beyond fact, graduation. prayers at voluntary, there graduation is at parties, that attendance attending failure indicate nothing record to in the was or benediction part the invocation to take students for with, discipline. Contrast any penalty or subject to required were Schoolchildren Barnette: example, the facts to do so Allegiance; failure Pledge of recite by law expelled child expulsion, threatened resulted criminally in- reformatory being prospect of sent to prosecution parents subjected his juveniles, and clined incarceration) delinquency. S., causing 319 U. (and pressures,” coercive “subtle To 629-630. characterize equiva- “practical” present here as allegedly ante, just legal me well, in Barnette is let sanctions ... lent analysis. say a “delicate and fact-sensitive” it is not prayer” Engel eases, oh our “school v. relies Court (1962), of Abington Dist. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 School (1963). Schempp, Ante, at 592. But whatever 374 U. S. they support, not much com cases, merit of those do less psycho-journey. place, Engel pel, In first Court’s exception Schempp an dis rule, do not constitute to the public practice, historical ceremonies tilled from prayer, they simply supra, rather, at 633-636; include see do (for scope of rule fall within the obvious reason not ceremony). Second, not a we that schoolinstruction is understanding prayer made our that school oecurs clear legal which within a framework in coercion to attend school (i. penalty) provides threat of the ultimate e., coercion under Schempp, example, emphasized backdrop. In we “prescribed part prayers were the curricular activi required by of students who are law to attend ties school.” added). (emphasis Engel’s suggestion S., 374 U. at 223 prayer program permitted at issue school there —which “to remain or be room,” students silent excused pressure,” S., id., U. at 430—involved “indirect coercive against backdrop legal should be 431, understood coer question opt-out procedure Engel cion. whether the dispel resulting mandatory the coercion sufficed from the requirement quite question attendance different from the utterly whether forbidden coercion in an exists environment legal compulsion. finally, prayer devoid And our school part inherently turn in eases on the fact that the classroom is daily setting, prayer an instructional there —where parents present are to counter “the students’ emulation susceptibility of teachers as role models and the children’s peer pressure,” Aguillard, Edwards v. 482 U. S. (1987) might thought special regarding to raise concerns — liberty parents state interference with the to direct the religious upbringing pub- of their children: “Families entrust condition children, but their education with

lie schools will understanding classroom that on trust their may that religious views advance to be used purposely not or his and student of the private beliefs conflict S.U. Sisters, 268 Society v. Pierce family.” Ibid.; see her one graduation Voluntary at (1925). prayer —a 510, 534-535 are relatives and friends, parents, ceremony at which time concerns. same thought raise hardly be present —can IV bedeviled has become jurisprudence Religion Clause Our abstractions formulaic (so on reliance speak) long- with, our positively conflict but from, derived among these Foremost traditions. accepted constitutional Kurtzman, v. Lemon test, see Lemon so-called been has well-earned (1971), received has which 602, 612-613 U. S. e.g., See, this Court. many Members criticism (opinion Ken 655-656 at Allegheny, S., 492 U. County of supra, 636-640 at Aguillard, (Scalia, J.); v. Edwards nedy, at 108-112 S., 472 U. dissenting); Jaffree, v. Wallace J., 402, S. 473 U. Felton, Aguilar dissenting); v. J., (Rehnquist, Board dissenting); Roemer (1985) J., (O’Connor, 426-430 (1976) (White, 736, 768-769 S. 426 U. of Md., Pub. Works today demonstrates Court judgment). concurring in J., ante, essentially ignoring it, see Lemon irrelevance happy one be the case interment and the Un decision. lamentable otherwise of the byproduct Court’s replaced Lemon with has fortunately, Court however, disability double suffers the test, which psycho-coercion practice, people’s historic in our having whatever no roots psycho the reasons infinitely expandable as being as therapy itself. juris- only a it is aspect ease happy

Another odd practical Given one. anot prudential disaster and benedictions decision, invocations Court’s for the basis graduations next given school able bewill long past century they and a so half, for the have June, as anyone abstains from clear who make authorities school necessarily participate in the screaming protest does not seemingly announcement, is an needed prayers. All that is gradu- beginning of the perhaps at the insertion a written to rise while all are asked program, that, to the effect ation join compelled to benediction, none is invocation for the by rising, to have done so. assumed, will be nor them, parents graduates their recited, the fact That obvious always may proceed done, God, thank as Americans blessings generously bestowed on them He has for the country. their

[*] ^{[*] [*]} per- the much in this case about has been told The reader very daughter, his and and of Mr. Weisman interest sonal They personal on the other side. interests about the little inconsequential. state not be and would Church are not appar- subject the were, as Court if a difficult such purely personal ently avocation that can some be, it to thinks pri- indulged entirely pornography, in the in like secret, be is not vacy that, it and For most believers room. of one’s Religious of almost all men and women been. has never necessary acknowledge to have felt it denominations just blessing people, of a and not as indi- the God as beseech they “protection of believe in the divine viduals, because Independence put it, not as the Declaration of Providence,” they just societies; individuals but for because believe Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation to first be, God put of be- it, the Lord and Ruler Nations.” One can “Great public worship, one lieve in the effectiveness of such can longstanding deprecate and deride it. But the American displays prayer tradition of officialceremonies with unmis- clarity takable that the Establishment does not forbid government the to accommodate it. present context of the a

The narrow ease involves commu- nity’s young of celebration one the milestones citi- to to seek this Court step for a bold it lives,

zens’ cele- similar thousands from occasion,and banish gratitude to expression of the land, throughout this brations The community to make. wishes majority God ques- philosophical today abstract is not us before issue of a frustrating desire alternative whether tion religious alternative over preferred majority be is to feeling exclusion, aor coercion,” “psychological imposing man- question whether Rather, upon nonbelievers. imposed been has datory choice former favor practices of age-old theAs Constitution. States United at all question is to answer people show, the our doubt. our Re- Founders observation: final one must add I religious be- potential of sectarian fearsome knew they And civil strife. dissension generate civil to lief nothing, inclined is so absolutely nothing, knew also tolera- faiths various religious believers among foster voluntarily join- than one another affection—for no, an tion— worship they all whom together, God prayer ing in compelled to say, one should no Needless seek. public culture deprive our is a it shame that, but do people to do encouragement, indeed opportunity, j oined heard and who Baptist or Catholic voluntarily. Gutterman prayers of Rabbi inspiring simple and in reli- inoculated patriotic was occasion official repli- cannot be in a manner prejudice bigotry gious unifying important society deprive our To cated. seems what spare nonbeliever in order mechanism, sitting standing or even inconvenience minimal theme policy it is senseless nonparticipation, is as respectful unsupported law. reasons, I dissent. foregoing

For the

Case Details

Case Name: Lee v. Weisman

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Jun 24, 1992

Citation: 505 U.S. 577

Docket Number: 90-1014

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS