Tanford v. Brand
104 F.3d 982, 115 Educ. L. Rep. 339 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public university's practice of including nonsectarian invocations and benedictions at its voluntary commencement ceremonies does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, especially when attendees are adults and there is no real or subtle coercion to participate.
Facts:
- Since 1840, Indiana University (IU) has included a nonsectarian invocation and benediction to open and close its annual morning Commencement Ceremony on the Bloomington campus.
- A committee consisting of faculty, staff, and students is responsible for planning the commencement activities, which include an address, conferral of degrees, and other traditional elements.
- The 1995 Commencement Ceremony featured a nonsectarian invocation and benediction delivered by Father Ralph W. Sims, a local religious leader, whose parish serves IU's Catholic students.
- The ceremony is a large public event, attended by 30,000-35,000 people, including approximately 5,000 of the 7,400 graduating students.
- Attendance at the university-wide Commencement Ceremony is voluntary for all graduating students, and no penalty is imposed for non-attendance.
- University President Brand stated that the purpose of the invocation and benediction is secular, aiming to emphasize the solemnity and dignity of the ceremony, rather than to sponsor or endorse any particular religious faith.
- Plaintiffs Professor Tanford, law students MacDonald and Suess, and undergraduate Urbanski object to the prayers, expressing discomfort or offense due to concerns about separation of church and state or participation in a different faith's service, though some acknowledged it would not affect their personal religious beliefs.
- The University's Director of Field Services stated that accommodations could easily be made for attendees wishing to enter or exit the ceremony at will, and it was common for people to move around.
Procedural Posture:
- Professor Tanford and law students MacDonald and Suess initiated a lawsuit against Indiana University to enjoin the giving of an invocation and benediction at the May 1995 Commencement Ceremony in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
- The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction concerning the May 6, 1995, ceremony.
- The plaintiffs amended their complaint to add undergraduate student Joseph Anthony Urbanski as a plaintiff.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment with the district court.
- The district court (Chief Judge Barker) denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the defendants (Indiana University).
- Plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 a public university's practice of including nonsectarian invocations and benedictions at its voluntary commencement ceremonies violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by coercing participation or failing the Lemon test?
Opinions:
Majority - CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge
No, a public university's practice of including nonsectarian invocations and benedictions at its voluntary commencement ceremonies does not violate the Establishment Clause. The court distinguished this case from Lee v. Weisman, which involved prayer at a middle school graduation, by emphasizing that university students are mature adults, less impressionable, and not subject to the same subtle coercive pressures as younger students. Unlike Lee, attendance at Indiana University's ceremony is voluntary, with no penalty for non-attendance, and attendees can easily avoid or ignore the prayers without notice. Many students chose not to attend, others left during the prayers, and most stadium attendees remained seated, demonstrating a lack of coercion. The court found that the prayers also passed the Lemon test, serving legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing a public occasion and continuing a long-standing tradition. The prayers were nonsectarian, intended to be uplifting and unifying, and did not endorse any particular religion or influence religious beliefs. The court concluded that any advancement of religion or governmental entanglement was de minimis, noting that the First Amendment was not intended to prohibit ceremonial invocations of God in such contexts, citing Marsh v. Chambers and Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21.
Analysis:
This case provides important clarification on the application of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, particularly distinguishing between public K-12 and higher education settings. It reinforces the principle that the "coercion test" from Lee v. Weisman is primarily concerned with the unique vulnerability of younger students, and that a less stringent standard may apply to voluntary events for adult university students. The decision suggests that a long-standing tradition of non-coercive, non-sectarian prayer at public university commencements, when attendance is voluntary, can serve a legitimate secular purpose and avoid constitutional infirmity.
