he nation's highest court is scheduled to hear oral arguments tomorrow in an important state-church separation case which could determined whether groups of students will be permitted to lead prayer or conduct other religious rituals at official functions.

   Justices will consider the issues in SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE. The case began in 1995 when two families, Catholic and Mormon, challenged the local school district policy of permitting prayer at graduation ceremonies and athletic events.

    In a series of cases from the early 1960s -- ENGEL v. VITALE, ABINGTON TOWNSHIP v. SCHEMPP and MURRAY v. CURLETT -- the Supreme Court struck down any unison prayer and Bible verse recitation, as well as a "nonsectarian" prayer which had been crafted by officials in New York state. Justices ruled that the practices violated the separation of church and state, and coerced students into participation in sectarian religious rituals. In 1992, the court ruled in LEE v. WEISMAN that prayers led by a cleric at school graduation ceremonies were unconstitutional.

    The Santa Fe Independent School District outside Houston, Texas, allowed so-called "student led" prayer at the high school graduation ceremonies and athletic contests. Supporters of school prayer, especially a growing number of "religious rights" advocacy groups, have maintained that prayer is permissible at certain events if it is "organized" and led by students, thus presumably eliminating any official involvement by school officials or government.

   Discussing the earlier school prayer suits, attorney Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice argued, "the assumption was that the state was the speaker. This is almost the mirror opposite. Students vote on whether to have a message at games."

   Sekulow is expected to be among the attorneys arguing Wednesday's brief in front of the high court. ACLJ, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, is representing the school district.

    The school district has also maintained that while its policy of permitting prayer at athletic events such as the popular weekend football games does not exclude certain types of sectarian prayer, it also does not specifically promote it. Presumably, the decision on whether to pray -- and what kind of prayer or "message" is to be delivered -- is up to a group of students. Attorneys opposed to the Santa Fe policy, though, say that the practice still amounts to an endorsement of religion, and that the school's guidelines are designed "to achieve a single, majoritarian answer ... and to impose that answer on everyone in the school."

    Texas attorney Kelly Coughlan, who is also expected to argue in front of the justices tomorrow, has defended the right of students to conduct what he labels "solemnization." He has suggested that the "solemnization" activity can consist of a prayer or any other "message" a student might wish to deliver. One school board official, though, told the Dallas Morning News , "The district is concerned that the real purpose (of student-led solemnization) appears to be to allow students to proselytize their religious beliefs through school-controlled, school-sponsored mediums, such as school loudspeaker systems, school sporting events or school assemblies..."

    The original case has wound its way through a judicial labyrinth for the past five years. The suit was originally before Judge Samuel Kent in Galveston, Texas, who conducted a special hearing in May, 1995 and issued an interim order establishing special guidelines on commencement ceremonies. In December, 1996, he ruled that the prayer at athletic events and graduation ceremonies would be constitutional so long as it was "nonsectarian and nonproselytizing," and did not mention a specific deity.

    On appeal from the Santa Fe Independent School District, the case then landed in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. A three judge panel voted 2-1 in February, 1999 to uphold the prayer practice at graduation ceremonies, but found that a high school football game was "hardly the sober type of annual event that can be appropriately solemnized with prayer." Backed by Robertson's ACLJ, the district again appealed, and filed a 36-page petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Even with the case pending, "student led" prayer has continued sporadically throughout Texas. The issue has also gained national attention: in November, 1999 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution introduced by Texas Rep. Henry Bonilla supporting the sense that "prayers and invocations at public school sporting events are constitutional under the First Amendment to the Constitution..." Also fueling the controversy was a series of incidents during the last football season, including one at Santa Fe High School where senior Marian Ward defied the Circuit Court's ban and delivered a pre-game prayer. In other districts throughout the state, there have been cases of "spontaneous" prayer, or incidents where local religious groups have vocalized a prayer using loudspeakers and even radio broadcasts.

    The Texas case will not only determine what role, if any, "student led" prayer will have in the nation's pucontentious part of the year 2000 election campaign. Texas Gov. George W. Bush -- the likely Republican nominee for president -- has supported the Santa Fe District's brief, and is close friends with Pat Robertson.

    Despite some arguments that "solemnization" does not automatically involve prayer, or that the prayer is majoritarian and nonsectarian, those supporting the activity seems to reflect a specific religious belief -- Christianity. Marian Ward, for instance, told the Washington Post that she is hoping that the high court will uphold the Santa Fe District's position. "My personal belief is that God calls for public acknowledgment in every part of our life," she said.

    Briefs opposing the school district's position, though, warn that the practice threatens the separation of church and state. The American Jewish Congress, for instance, cautions that despite the veneer of student involvement, the religious exercises still threaten the separation of church and state, and could "hurt religious believers as well as nonbelievers." Former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger has also urged the high court to find against the district.

    "In communities sensitive to religious minorities," Dellinger wrote, "government involvement in religious activity leads inevitably to watered-down 'nonsectarian' prayer, satisfying to few who take their religious commitments seriously. In other communities, official sectarian prayers track outright the beliefs of the dominant sect, excluding local religious minorities and making them outsiders in their own schools and towns..."

[text only]