"To evaluate (this) claim ... we must venture into
the often-dreaded and certainly murky area
of Establishment Clause jurisprudence..."

-- 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
KOENICK v. FELTON

he U.S. Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will let stand a Maryland statute requiring public schools to close on Good Friday, an event when Christians commemorate the death of Jesus Christ.

   Acting without comment, the justices rejected an appeal from a former teacher who argued that the closings endorsed a particular religion and thus violated the separation of church and state.

   A brief filed by plaintiff Judith Koenick, a retired Maryland public school instructor, argued that the state law "sends a message of inclusion to Christian schoolchildren and a message of exclusion to their Jewish, Muslim and non-believing classmates." Attorneys asked the justices "to bring order to the lower courts' chaotic decisions concerning governmental recognition of Good Friday."

   Lawyers representing the Montgomery County, Md. Board of Education, though, insisted that the Good Friday holiday status did not differ from other sanctioned holidays that happen to correlate with religious observances, including Christmas.

   Maryland's Good Friday recongition traces back to an act passed in 1865. The school's lawyers opined that the status "is anchored around the increasingly secularized holiday of Easter, which is a traditional time for Marylanders, like other Americans, to begin Easter-related travel."

   The court's decision lets stand a 1997 U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case (KOENICK v. FELTON). Judges cited a number of factors, including the expectation of possible high absenteeism during Good Friday which was already part of a larger Easter vacation period; the fact that holiday does not discriminate between denominations since it is part of a holiday affecting all county schools and students; and that the holiday could have a secular purpose in providing a time off to state employees, and saving the state money and resources from not having to hire replacement teachers for those who might observe the holy day.

   The Circuit Court decision also mused, "A statute whose primary effect is to advance a secular purpose, rather than a religious one, is still constitutional even if it conveys an incidental benefit to those of a specific religion..." and argued that providing a Good Friday or broader Easter-period holiday "does not mention or imply that the holiday is to be spent attending religious services in recognition of this Christian holy day. The statute merely gives people the days off to spend as they like..."

   Koenick also insisted that while the school district has recently created holidays on Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement) and Rosh Hashanah, the New Year, those are not part of state statutes. Thus, "By recognizing Christian holy days as public school holidays while failing to accord a similar status to any other religion's holy days ... (this) creates a denominational preference in favor of the Christian faith."

   Twelve states -- Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Tennessee -- have some form of Good Friday law affecting public schools. A Wisconsin statute was struck down in 1996, and Texas has a provision declaring the date an "optional holiday" for state employees. Government employees also have a Good Friday holiday in California and Kentucky.

   Confusion over government-sanctioned religious holidays remains. In 1995, for instance, the 7th District Court of Appeals declared that a state statute ordering public schools to close on Good Friday was unconstitutional.

   Justices opined: "The First Amendment does not allow a state to make it easier for adherents of one faith to practice their religion than for adherents of another faith to practice their religion unless there is a secular justification for the difference in treatment."

   Various cases have also approached this issue in different ways, and resulted in conflicting rulings. In BRIDENBAUGH v. O'BANNON (1998), the plaintiff challenged an Indiana statute declaring the Good Friday holiday, asserting that it "established a religious holiday as a state holiday and represents the state favoring one religion over another and over non-religion." The court ruled, though, that the holiday served a secular purpose in giving state employees time off, and had also been sufficiently diluted of any religious overtones by being christened the "spring" holiday.

   METZL v. LEININGER (1995) challenged an Illinois Good Friday law that had been enacted in 1941. Both a federal judge and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court found that the legislature had acted improperly in declaring the day as a school holiday.

   In Hawaii, CAMMACK v. WAIHEE (1991) challenged that state's declaration of Good Friday as a legal holiday. In this case, though, the federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court ruled in favor of the state. The Circuit Court judges noted that Good Friday "has become a popular shopping day in Hawaii and businesses have benefited from the three-day weekend created as a result of the holiday... Citizens are better able to enjoy the many recreational opportunities available in Hawaii."

   The debate over establishing state holidays to coincide with religious festivals will likely continue for some time; and the Supreme Court, even in letting stand the lower bench ruling, seems unwilling to dive into this "murky" area of Establishment Clause law. Challenges will likely continue, and even at the federal level, one of the most widely observed religious holidays -- Christmas -- is under assault by one attorney, who says that it is an unconstitutional recognition and sanction of religious belief.

[text only]