A Southern California school district that previously began each of its school board meetings with a prayer is now facing obstacles in resuming that tradition. This follows a Supreme Court decision that allowed a high school football coach to pray at the 50-yard line after games, with players from both teams joining him. However, a federal judge has ruled that public schools, including their governing boards, are constitutionally restricted from holding prayers during public meetings.
Despite the favorable ruling for the football coach in Washington state back in 2022, U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal expressed skepticism, stating, "this Court is not persuaded that the Supreme Court has overturned its line of school prayer cases," when he denied the request from the Chino Valley Unified School District in San Bernardino County to allow clergy to offer prayers at their meetings. This lineage of cases can be traced back to 1962, when the Supreme Court decided in Engel v. Vitale that the First Amendment's prohibition against government "establishment of religion" barred public schools from conducting prayer sessions within classrooms, even when attendance was voluntary.
The current composition of the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority of 6-3, has made some significant rulings that appear to erode church-state barriers. These include decisions that mandated Boston to permit a Christian flag to be displayed at City Hall, allowed a 40-foot cross on public land in Maryland that has stood since 1925, and in 2021, exempted church services from California's restrictions on indoor gatherings amidst the COVID pandemic.
The case referenced by the Chino Valley district pertains to the situation involving Joseph Kennedy, a football coach in Bremerton, Washington, who was permitted to pray publicly at midfield following each game, where students frequently joined him. The 6-3 ruling led by Justice Neil Gorsuch overturned the decision to terminate Kennedy's employment, stating that his actions constituted "a quiet prayer of thanks" and represented "private speech, not government speech."
The Chino Valley district maintained that the high court's recent rulings had effectively nullified the longstanding prohibition against school-sponsored prayer. They referenced the justices' decision to abandon the Lemon test, established in a 1971 ruling, which required courts to evaluate whether governmental policies had a "secular legislative purpose" and whether their primary effect was to promote or inhibit religion, in determining potential First Amendment violations.
Attorney Joel Oster, representing the district as part of the Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a religious nonprofit organization, argued in a July court filing that "history, tradition, and common sense" clearly illustrate that invocations held to solemnize occasions and bond government employees before school board meetings are deeply embedded in the historical fabric of the nation. He contended that a practice so historically significant should align with constitutional standards.
Judge Bernal was not swayed by this argument. He previously halted the district's prayer practices within classrooms in 2014 and retains authority over this case.
Rejecting the school district's reliance on the earlier case of the football coach, Bernal clarified that the nature of the coach's "quiet prayer" significantly differs from the situation at hand—where school officials commenced board meetings with prayers, recited Bible verses, and made religious remarks in front of regularly attending students. Furthermore, he referenced a 2016 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which backed his decision to cease classroom prayers, noting that they constituted an "establishment" of religion since they typically were performed before groups of students whose attendance wasn’t genuinely optional, and who were not on an equal footing with school district authorities.
The practice of holding prayers at meetings was initially challenged by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for families who object to such prayers.
Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor expressed satisfaction with the ruling, stating, "We are so pleased that reason and our secular Constitution have prevailed here, and that the families in this school district will not have to endure coercive prayers in order to attend school board meetings.” Representatives from the district were unavailable for comment, leaving the possibility of an appeal open for discussion.
