Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

Introduction

Mormon and Catholic students of Santa Fe district high schools found themselves offended by prayer practices at schools. Namely, before every home football match, one of the students of the school would deliver a prayer over the school’s public address system (Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)).

Procedural History

In 1995, students of Mormon and Catholic religious persuasion who attended Santa Fe high schools together with their mothers filed a lawsuit against the school district to the United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas. In the lawsuit, they stated that the schools were engaged in a practice that violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution. During the process, the schools revised their procedure (Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)). They began referring to the practice as “invocations” rather than prayers, and the students of the school began voting whether or not they want the “invocations” to take place and which student should deliver them (Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)). The plaintiffs in this case were referred to as Does in order to protect their identity because they could face serious harassment from the community.

Referring to Jones v. Clear Creek, 930 F.2d 416 (1991), Judge Samuel Kent of the Southern District Court of Texas ruled that the practice can be maintained as long as it refrained from sectarianism and attempts to convert others.

Both sides appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. The Independent Santa Fe School District claimed that the refrainment from sectarianism was not necessary while the plaintiffs demanded that the practice be outlawed completely. After the court ruled that the refrainment from sectarianism is necessary, the plaintiffs demanded the US Supreme Court hearing.

Issues

  • Issue 1: whether the Santa Fe school district was forcing individuals to participate in a prayer and/or attempting to establish a state religion which would be in breach of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
  • Issue 2: Whether the prayers delivered over the address system constituted public speech.

Holdings

  • Issue 1: No. The Court of Appeals decided that as long as there is no sectarianism in the prayers delivered before football matches, there is no attempt at favoring one religion over others or converting individuals from one religion into the other.
  • Issue 2: No. The fact that the students who delivered the invocations were elected on the basis of their own reputations suggests that the invocations that they deliver are their private speech.
  • Reasoning: in their appeal, plaintiffs provided the following reasoning in support of their appeal.
  • Issue 1: The plaintiffs argued that the First Amendment of the US Constitution bans religious practices of any kind in all public institutions. As the Constitution bans the endorsement of any religion by the government, it automatically prevents all government institutions from engaging in any religious practices.
  • Issue 2: Plaintiffs argued that the very fact that the prayers were delivered over the public address system in a public school meant that the school had authorized them. These facts alone entailed that these prayers constituted public speech.

Decision

The Supreme Court accepted the reasoning of the plaintiffs and ruled the practice of school prayers unconstitutional. Relying on Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), which banned the school prayers delivered by the clergy, the Judge ruled that school prayer represented public speech and, therefore, public endorsement of religion which is banned by the Constitutions.

Comment

The case illustrates the fact that the US Supreme Court can give a ruling different than those given by the lower courts. This is particularly true for cases involving the assessment of the status of a particular practice with respect to the provisions of the US Constitution.

References

Jones v. Clear Creek, 930 F.2d 416 (1991).

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2022, April 5). Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. https://ivypanda.com/essays/santa-fe-independent-school-district-v-doe/

Work Cited

"Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe." IvyPanda, 5 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/santa-fe-independent-school-district-v-doe/.

References

IvyPanda. (2022) 'Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe'. 5 April.

References

IvyPanda. 2022. "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe." April 5, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/santa-fe-independent-school-district-v-doe/.

1. IvyPanda. "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe." April 5, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/santa-fe-independent-school-district-v-doe/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe." April 5, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/santa-fe-independent-school-district-v-doe/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
Privacy Settings

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

  • Basic site functions
  • Ensuring secure, safe transactions
  • Secure account login
  • Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
  • Remembering privacy and security settings
  • Analyzing site traffic and usage
  • Personalized search, content, and recommendations
  • Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Required Cookies & Technologies
Always active

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Site Customization

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

  • Remembering general and regional preferences
  • Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy.

Personalized Advertising

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy.

1 / 1