Lee v. Weisman

United States Supreme Court
505 U.S. 577 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Including clergy who offer prayers as part of an official public school graduation ceremony is an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as it constitutes governmental coercion of religious observance.

Facts:

The Providence, Rhode Island public school system had a policy permitting principals to invite members of the clergy to offer invocations and benedictions at graduation ceremonies.
Robert E. Lee, the principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School, invited Rabbi Leslie Gutterman to deliver prayers at the 1989 graduation ceremony.
Deborah Weisman, a 14-year-old student, was scheduled to graduate at the ceremony.
Principal Lee provided Rabbi Gutterman with a pamphlet titled “Guidelines for Civic Occasions” and advised him that the prayers should be nonsectarian.
Daniel Weisman, Deborah's father, objected to the inclusion of prayers in the ceremony before it took place.
Deborah and her family attended the graduation, where the rabbi delivered the invocation and benediction.
During the prayers, students were directed to stand.
The parties stipulated that attendance at graduation ceremonies was voluntary.

Procedural Posture:

Daniel Weisman, on behalf of himself and his daughter Deborah, filed suit against Principal Robert E. Lee and other Providence school officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
Weisman's initial request for a temporary restraining order to prevent the prayer was denied by the district court due to lack of time.
After the ceremony, Weisman filed an amended complaint seeking a permanent injunction to prevent school officials from inviting clergy to deliver prayers at future graduations.
The District Court, ruling on a set of stipulated facts, held that the practice violated the Establishment Clause and granted the permanent injunction.
The school officials, as petitioners, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision, prompting the petitioners to seek review from the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does including a clergy-led, nonsectarian prayer as part of a public school graduation ceremony violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kennedy

Yes. Including a clergy-led prayer as part of a public school graduation ceremony violates the Establishment Clause because the state's involvement is pervasive and creates subtle but powerful coercion for students to participate in a religious exercise. The school principal, a state actor, not only decided to include prayer but also selected the religious participant and provided guidance on the prayer's content, creating a state-sponsored and state-directed religious observance. Although attendance is nominally voluntary, the immense social and personal importance of a graduation ceremony makes it, for all practical purposes, obligatory. This environment places public and peer pressure on students to stand or remain silent, actions which signify participation. This forces a dissenter into the unacceptable choice of either conforming to a religious practice against their conscience or protesting and missing a uniquely significant event, an exaction the Constitution forbids.

Concurring - Justice Blackmun

Yes. The practice of including clergy-led prayer at a public school graduation is unconstitutional. While the majority's coercion analysis is correct, proof of coercion is not necessary to find an Establishment Clause violation; government endorsement of religion is sufficient. By composing, supervising, and presenting a prayer at a school event, the government places its official stamp of approval on a religious activity. This action advances and promotes religion, which our precedents clearly prohibit, regardless of whether direct compulsion is present. The state must not engage in religious practices, as doing so sends a message that religion is favored, which violates the core principles of the Establishment Clause.

Concurring - Justice Souter

Yes. State-sponsored prayer at public school graduation is unconstitutional. This conclusion is based on two fundamental Establishment Clause principles: the clause forbids not only preferential treatment of one religion over another but also nonpreferential aid to religion in general, and state coercion is not a necessary element of a violation. Historical evidence shows the Framers deliberately chose broad language to prohibit state support for 'religion' in general. Furthermore, precedents have consistently invalidated noncoercive state endorsements of religion. The prayer at issue here is an unconstitutional endorsement, not a permissible accommodation, because omitting it imposes no discernible burden on any student's free exercise of religion.

Dissenting - Justice Scalia

No. Including a nonsectarian prayer at a public school graduation ceremony does not violate the Establishment Clause. The majority's holding disregards a long-standing American tradition of prayer at public ceremonies that is part of our cultural and political heritage. The Court invents a novel and unworkable 'psychological coercion' test that has no basis in constitutional history. The only coercion the Establishment Clause prohibits is that which is backed by force of law or threat of penalty, not subtle peer pressure. Students at a voluntary ceremony are not coerced into praying; they can choose to sit silently, and standing respectfully does not equate to participation. The majority opinion represents a jurisprudential disaster that needlessly banishes a cherished tradition from a significant community celebration.

Analysis:

This decision established the 'coercion test' as a primary tool for analyzing Establishment Clause cases in the public school context, shifting focus from the traditional Lemon test. It broadened the concept of coercion to include indirect psychological and social pressures, particularly as they affect impressionable adolescents. The ruling solidified the principle that state-sponsored religious exercises are impermissible at key school events like graduations, reinforcing the separation of church and state in public education. Future cases involving religion in schools would now be analyzed not just for endorsement but for the more subtle effects of state-sponsored activities on student conscience.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"