From the Religion Clause Blog:
On Tuesday, a Texas federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the Texas law that requires public schools to observe a moment of silence each day during which students may “reflect, pray, meditate, or engage in any other silent activity that is not likely to interfere with or distract another student.” In Croft v. Perry, (ND TX, Jan. 2, 2008), most of the court’s 36-page opinion focused on the state’s purpose in enacting the current version of the law. The court concluded: “Although it is a close question, the Court finds legitimate the secular purpose of allowing for all types of thoughtful contemplation and concludes that this purpose is supported by the legislative history and sufficient to withstand the Lemon test. The Court rejects the argument that this purpose is trivial or pretextual.” Today's Houston Chronicle and Dallas News both reported on the decision. (See prior related postings 1, 2.)
In June 2008, we filed an amicus brief in
support of the Crofts. We argued that the statute's text and
legislative history reveal that the legislature's primary purpose was to
advance religion, and that the state’s proffered secular purposes were
shams.
In March 2009, the Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court's decision, ruling that the moment-of-silence law had a secular purpose and did not violate the Establishment Clause.
What do you think? Did the courts get this one right?
No comments:
Post a Comment