Analysis of Lee V Weisman (1992)

In 1992, the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court case of Lee v Weisman, ruled it unconstitutional for public schools to provide invocations and benedictions during graduation ceremonies. The civic liberty in question in this case related to the traditional public sector recognition of the Supreme Being through prayer. When a middle student objected to this acknowledgement, her father filed suit to stop the prayers on the grounds her religious freedoms were violated. The question before the Court raised the controversy between traditional cultural practices versus public sector recognition of God and if that recognition establishes state religion.

The court ruling, a five to four majority, favored the student's inability to opt out of the prayers. The opinion cited psychological coercion as their rationale while the dissent questioned the absence of historical precedence in the ruling. This decision affected our culture in a distinct manner, but did not completely eliminate prayer in schools. While this author agrees with the dissent, the issue remains a controversial question to this day.

Civil Liberty

The basic civil liberty at stake in this case is religious freedom. Regarding this issue, the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (U.S. Constitution, 1791). Specifically, Lee v Weismann (1992) contends with the issue of invocations and benedictions within public school graduation ceremonies of children. The question before the Court: Does a prayer during a public sector formal ceremony become a governmental establishment of religion?

Facts and Brief History of the Case

In 1989, Deborah Weisman graduated from Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence, Rhode Island. At the graduation ceremony, Rabbi Leslie Gutterman, Senior Rabbi of Temple Beth-El gave the invocation and benediction. In keeping with local customs, the clergy was chosen by the school principle, Robert E. Lee. Prior to the ceremony, Lee gave the rabbi a copy of Guidelines for Civic Occasions, prepared by the National Conference of Christians and Jews (NCCJ), and advised him the prayers should be nonsectarian. At the ceremony, Rabbi Gutterman read two ecumenical prayers after everyone recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Four days before the graduation ceremony, Deborah's father, Daniel, sought a temporary restraining order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to stop the prayers from taking place. The court denied the request due to lack of time to consider the case. After they attended the graduation ceremony, Weisman filed an amended complaint to permanently bar clergy from reciting invocations and benedictions at graduation ceremonies. Citing the Lemon Test from Lemon v Kurtzman (1971), that court ruled in favor of Weisman and placed a continuous injunction on the school.

The Lemon Test was a result of the majority opinion written by then Chief Justice (C.J.) Warren Burger regarding religious establishment as related to the First Amendment, commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause. It was identified that a public-sector organization engaging in religious activity must "(1) reflect a clearly secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion" (Lemon v Kurtman, 1971, as referenced in Lee v Weisman, 1992). On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the ruling (Lee v Weisman, 1990). In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court rulings in Lee v Weisman.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion of the Court. Joining him were Justices Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, and Souter. Kennedy reasoned that since the decision to pray or not to pray was up to Lee, then the State of Rhode Island bore the full responsibility. "It [was] as if a state statute decreed that the prayers must occur." In addition, providing the rabbi with guidance that the prayers be nonsectarian, the court determined "the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers" (Lee v Weisman, 1992).

Further addressing the Establishment Clause, the Court declared, "The First Amendment does not allow the government to stifle prayers..., neither does it permit the government to undertake that task for itself" (Lee v Weisman, 1992). In doing so, the school violated the second test of the clause. According to Kennedy, conducting invocations and benedictions during state-run ceremonies is a government endorsement of religion, which he considers unconstitutional.

In addition to the Establishment Clause, the opinion declared that the state used social pressures to coerce participation in a required religious activity. Justice Kennedy cited several studies regarding adolescent peer pressure. At the same time, Kennedy admits that an individual has three choices while standing silently amidst the audience: (1) participate, (2) practice one's own religion, or (3) let the mind wander. While students suffer no punitive consequences from not attending graduation, priority is given to students' right to attend over the school's policy of voluntary participation. It should also be noted that the opinion expressly omits situations where "the affected citizens are mature adults" (Lee v Weisman, 1992), thereby allowing legislatures and other governmental organizations to hold invocations and/or benedictions.

Dissenting Remarks

Justice Antonin Scalia filed the dissenting opinion, joined by C.J. Rehnquist as well as Justices White and Thomas. The author challenged the court of three fronts: (1) its interpretation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, (2) the assertion that the student was psychologically coerced to pray, as well as (3) creating a distinctive application of this amendment regarding adult audiences.

Scalia opened with a quote from an opinion he joined only three years prior, "A test for implementing

...