Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
joined.
Case 5 As such, the said policy bore a perceived stamp of government approval and could therefore not be regarded private.
Citation: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000)
Argued: March 29, 2000
Date Decided: June 19, 2000
Vote: 6-3: The policy adopted by the Santa Fe Independent School District with regard to allowing prayers that were led and initiated by students during sporting events went against the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Facts of Case: Students in Santa Fe Independent School District were allowed to offer prayers (mostly Christian) using PA systems before football games commenced. Two parents -- one a Catholic and the other a Mormon - filed a suit in objection to this practice. During litigation, students elected to have the delivery of "invocations" during games with the said invocations being delivered by a selected spokesperson (Oyez, 2011). This policy was allowed by the District Court. The Court of Appeals however held that the said policy even in its modified state was still invalid. The Supreme Court granted certiorari as petitioned by the District Court which argued that "its policy did not violate the Establishment Clause because the football game messages were private student speech, not public speech" (Oyez, 2011).
Legal Principles at Issue: Whether the Santa Fe Independent School District policy was in any way violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Legal Basis for Decision: It was the decision of the court that the student led prayer policy was largely unconstitutional. In that regard, the policy was effectively found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause. In the court's opinion, prayers conducted at football matches in the context of the case could be categorized as "public speech authorized by a government...
...
Quotable: "The delivery of a message such as the invocation here -- on school property, at school-sponsored events, over the school's public address system, by a speaker representing the student body…pursuant to a school policy…is not properly characterized as 'private' speech" (Hinchey, 2001, p. 131).
Writing for: Justice Stevens, J.P delivered the opinion of the court in which Justices O'Connor S.D., Kennedy, a.M., Souter, DH, Ginsburg, R.B. And Breyer, S.G. joined the Majority.
Writing Dissenting Opinion(s): Chief Justice Rehnquist, W. filed a dissenting opinion in which Scalia, a. And Thomas, C. joined.
References
Alexander, K. & Alexander, M.D. (2011). American Public School Law (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Hinchey, P. (2001). Student Rights: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Imber, M. & Geel, T.V. (2010). A Teacher's Guide to Education Law (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Oyez. (2011). Brown v. Board of Education (I). Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1952/1952_1/
Oyez. (2011). Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21
Oyez. (2011). Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836
Oyez. (2011). New Jersey v. T.L.O. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_712
Oyez. (2011). Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_62
Supreme Court cases (Muller V. Oregon) women's right Why it was an issue of national importance The Muller v. Oregon case was among the most crucial Supreme Court cases in the U.S. during the progressive regime. The case held an Oregon law that limited the working days for female wage employees to a maximum of ten hours. In 1908, this case created a precedent to expand access of national activities into the
Supreme Court Case The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was an extremely important one, and one which set a significant precedent in the United States that would not be overturned until the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the middle of the 20th century. The former case set the precedent for what was known as the separate but equal doctrine. The principle question considered in this case was
7. Sester v. United States - Docket No., 10-7387 -- The question is whether a district court has authority to order a federal sentence to run consecutive to an anticipated, but not-yet-imposed, state sentence ? 8. Williams v. Illinois - Docket No., 10-8505 -- The question is whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the
Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court Case Study Every year Supreme Court provides decision in cases that really impact the American citizen's rights. The aim of this analysis is to keenly check cases handled by the Supreme Court and the way they were given their final verdict. The parties involved sometimes get that the cases favor them or not depending on the existing laws or even through undermining the constitution. The case in
Is the EEOC's understanding of its rule entitled to respect under Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 127 S. Ct. 2339 (2007) -- a case decided twelve days after the Eighth Circuit delivered its decision in this case? Martel v. Clair - Docket No., 10-1265 In this case after ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent abruptly complained about and sought substitution of his
HOLT V. HOBBS: PETITIONER'S SIDE OF THE CASE The objective of this study is to answer the legal question of whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections grooming policy violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by preventing Holt from growing a one-half inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. Facts of the Case The petitioner in this case, Gregory Holt is who also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad, an inmate