Santa Fe Case

Although there was a history of various types of school prayer in this school district, this case concerns a school policy that allowed students to vote on whether to allow a student to deliver a message, statement or invocation at home football games. P.1702

The issue in this case is whether pregame invocations are speech attributed to the government which is prohibited by the EC, or private student speech which is protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses. See p. 1703 “crucial difference....”

How much government involvement do we have here?

‒ School has set up an election process to determine whether a student elected by her classmates may deliver a "message, statement, or invocation" before varsity football games.

‒ Student chosen by the majority gets preferred access to public address system and an audience that has come to participate in a school activity.

‒ The policy “invites and encourages” religious messages. (p. 1704). How so? So what? Liberty interest?

- In this context, the audience at football games “must perceive the pregame message as a public expression of the views of the majority of the student body delivered with the approval of the school administration.” (p. 1705) So what?

‒ endorsement of religion

‒ School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible. Why? See P. 1705:

"School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the
ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents 'that they are
outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message
to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'”

What message does the Court's censorship of religious speech send to students whose faith is an important part of their identity?

– government may not use social pressure (to attend a football game) to enforce religious orthodoxy. (p.1706) What social pressure? What religious orthodoxy?


What actually happened at the games? Was any prayer ever said under this policy?

Notice the Court strikes down the policy under a facial challenge, because the purpose of the policy violated the EC – its purpose was to endorse student prayer at football games. (p. 1707).

Why should we think that the school's permitting students to elect a student speaker amounts to an endorsement of religion? Why not view it as an endorsement od the democratic process and of student expression?