14
Students’ Complete Guide to Religious Rights in Public School
protects the right of students to engage in voluntary prayer); see also Chandler , 230 F.3d at 1317. 10. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Guidance on Prayer, supra note 7 (emphasis added). 11. Tinker , 393 U.S. at 511; Chandler , 230 F.3d at 1317. 12. U.S. Dept. of Educ., Guidance on Prayer , supra note 7. 13. Id. 14. Id.; see also Morgan , 659 F.3d at 412 (“[W]hat one child says to another child is within the protection of the First Amendment”). 15. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Guidance on Prayer, supra note 7. 16. See R osenberger, 515 U.S. at 828-29, 845-46; Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 393-94 (1993); Morgan , 695 F.3d at 401-02. 17. Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier , 484 U.S. 260, 270-271 (1988). 18. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 530 U.S. at 313 (holding that although it is unconstitutional for the government to “affirmatively sponsor[] the particular religious practice of prayer” that the Constitution protects the right of students to engage in voluntary prayer). See also Chandler v. Siegelman , 230 F.3d 1313, 1317 (11th Cir. 2000). 19. U.S. Dept. of Educ., Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/ prayer_guidance.html; see also Morgan , 659 F.3d at 412 (“[W]hat one child says to another child is within the protection of the First Amendment”). 20. Id. (emphasis added). 21. Id . 22. Id. (emphasis added). 23. Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch ., 228 F.3d 1092, 1103–05 (9th Cir. Smith v. Pyro Mining, 827 F.2d 1081, 1085 (6th Cir. 1987); Turpen v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. , 736 F.2d 1022, 1026 (5th Cir. 1984). 2. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701(j), 42 U.S.C § 2000e(j); Sanchez- Rodriguez v. AT & T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc. , 673 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2012). 3. Trans World Airlines v. Hardison , 432 U.S. 63, 73-74 (1977); 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(c); Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp ., 390 F.3d 126, 137 (1st Cir. 2004); Daniels v. City of Arlington , 246 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2001); Wilson v. U.S. West Commc’ns, 58 F.3d 1337, 1342 n.3 (8th Cir.1995). 4. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431 (1971) (“The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation”); Riley v. Bendix Corp ., 464 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1972). 24. Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch., 228 F.3d 1092, 1103–05 (9th Cir. 2000).
to give out gifts with religious messages.[35] Please note, however, that a few courts have deviated from this generally accepted rule in cases involving student religious expression in class assignments when younger students, such as kindergarten and first grade students, are involved. Some federal appeals courts, such as the Third Circuit (which includes Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), and the Sixth Circuit (which includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee), have granted more discretion to schools in these situations depending on the particular facts. If this situation arises, please contact First Liberty for further analysis and guidance. Case Precedent: 2. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. , 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) (“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”); Morgan v. Swanson , 659 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc). 3. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe , 530 U.S. 290, 302 (2000) (“[T] here is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and p rivate speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.") (internal quotations omitted).See Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995) (“Our precedent establishes that private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression.”). 4. Lynch v. Donnelly , 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984) (“Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.”). 5. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 839 (1995). 6. Chandler v. Siegelman, 230 F.3d 1313, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). 7. U.S. Dept. of Educ., Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, available at http:// www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_ guidance.html (last updated Jan. 16, 2020); see also Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 845-46. 8. See Lynch , 465 U.S. at 673 (“Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.”); Pinette , 515 U.S. at 760. 9. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 530 U.S. at 313 (holding that although it is unconstitutional for the government to “affirmatively sponsor[] the particular religious practice of prayer” that the Constitution
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator