Thompson 1
Scott Thompson
Mr. Meadows
AP US Government
14 May 2008
Lee v. Weisman
On June 24, 1992 the United States Supreme Court released their ruling on Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577. Petitioner Robert E. Lee, principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence, Rhode Island, appealed from a lower court ruling on prayer during graduation ceremonies. The respondent, Daniel Weisman, successfully won a ruling by the United States District Court of the District of Rhode Island. The lower court ruling stated that the prayer at Deborah Weisman's middle school graduation was a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings and concluded that Principal Lee, a member of the government, endorsed a religion by asking a rabbi to pray at his school's graduation (Oyez: Lee v. Weisman, Case Summary).
Prior to the District Court case, Mr. Weisman unsuccessfully attempted to gain a temporary restraining order that would have prevented the inclusion of prayers in his daughter's graduation ceremony. After the Weismans attended the graduation, they filed court case in Rhode Island's District Court. The District Court ruled that the rabbi's prayer, and prayers by other members of the clergy, violated the Establishment Clause. The inclusion of such prayers failed to pass the Lemon Test as set inLemon v. Kurtzman. Principal Lee was granted a Writ of Ceritorari from the Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's verdict (Oyez: Lee v. Weisman, Case Summary).
During the Supreme Court hearing on November 6, 1991, the petitioner argued that the Rabbi's prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause. Because the graduation ceremony was not necessary for a student to graduate and advance to high school, the ceremony was voluntary. The voluntary nature of the graduation made the Rabbi's prayer non-coercive. In keeping with American tradition and the ceremony's voluntary nature, the graduation did not infringe upon the previous court rulings in Lemon v. Kurtzman and Engle v. Vitale, according to the petitioner.
The respondent counter-argued that the rabbi's prayer was essentially a school prayer case. Because the school coordinated the event and knowingly invited a member of the clergy to perform religious acts, the graduation ceremony was a government endorsement of religion. The petitioner's argument that the graduation was different because it was voluntary and non-instructional was countered by the respondent's argument that the one graduation day could not be removed from the a student's years-long continuum of school. In another counter to the petitioner, the respondent argued that the prayer was subtly coercive because of the impressionability of children and teenagers. Seeing teachers take part in the religious act of prayer, combined with teenage peer pressure, could coerce and infringe upon the religious ideals of some people, or, in this case, Deborah Weisman. The argument that the school endorsed religion was strengthened by the fact that Principal Lee gave the rabbi a pamphlet entitled "Guidelines for Civic Occasions." The pamphlet discussed how to say a nonsectarian prayer, something that Lee also requested from the rabbi.
Ultimately the Supreme Court used the Lemon Test as the impetus behind their ruling, which concurred with the lower court rulings. The Lemon Test's three parts state that government programs (1) must be for secular purposes, (2) neither inhibit nor advance a religion, and (3) must not become excessively entangled with religion (Lee v. Weisman). The Supreme Court only tested the second part of the test. Because the graduation ceremony was inherently unvoluntary and Principal Lee chose a specific rabbi, the government was advancing a religion. Therefore, the court ruled that it was illegal for public schools to include religious prayers during ceremonies such as graduations.
According to the majority's written opinion, the prayers at Nathan Bishop Middle School are obvious infringements upon the Constitution's First Amendment. The apparent violation is further supported by decades of court rulings cementing the idea of separation of church and state. The disputed activities in Lee v. Weisman are not explicitly in keeping with the rulings inLemon v. Kurtzman, Engle v. Vitale, and other court precedents. Instead, the legal gray area of prayer during school ceremonies had to be specifically applied to the prior cases. The majority of justices view the school's inclusion of prayers by a selected clergyman to a captive, young, and easily coerced audience as a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause. Government planning of such a ceremony amounts to government endorsement of a religion.
The majority also argues that the outcome of this case is a manifestation of American government and ideals. The Establishment Clause was created to protect free government. If an official religion is endorsed by the government, it will leave sections of society excluded and call into question the equality of Americans.
The minority of four justices argues that the case should have been viewed form a historical perspective. The failure to view the case from this viewpoint completely ignores the traditional inclusion of prayers and religion during public school graduations. The case's dissenting opinion gives numerous examples of how the Founding Father's included religion in government. They argue that this unwritten idea is wrongly being removed from society and government today. Instead, the courts and Americans need to make decisions based upon tradition and history's lessons, according the dissenting justices.
In addition to the argument of tradition, the dissenters stated that the nine justices are amateurs acting as psychologists in cases such asLee v. Weisman where teenagers and their coercion are key factors in the case's resolution. The dissenters also argue that Principal Lee's involvement with the rabbi and his prayer is absurd and distorted. Lee did not write the prayer or control its content. Instead he offered obvious, common sense tips to the rabbi to prevent the prayer from becoming controversial and, he thought, unconstitutional.
Lee v. Weisman simply applied the rulings from previous Supreme Court cases in a legal gray area. No new tests for evaluating the Establishment Clause resulted from this case. As a result of the ruling, public schools have been barred from including religious invocations and benedictions during ceremonies such as graduations. The court room proceedings indirectly challenged prior cases such as Lemon v. Kurtzman andEngle v. Vitale; however, such cases were further strengthened, not weakened or overturned by Lee v. Weisman.
Lee v. Weisman has not yet been directly challenged in court. However, in 2000 the Supreme Court heardSanta Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The case dealt with school prayer and sporting events. The court ruled in accordance with its prior school prayer rulings, including Lee v. Weisman.
The court's ruling and response is, at first glance, logical. However, under closer examination, the outcome was reached by the distortion of evidence and a complete disregard for America's strong traditions. The rabbi's prayers did not violate the Establishment Clause. The school, and subsequently the government, were not advancing or endorsing a religion. Instead they were organizing a traditional graduation ceremony the was steeped in the American tradition of religious inclusion at such ceremonies. The argument that Principal Lee was involved in the creation of the prayer is absurd. Although he may have given Rabbi Gutterman coaching on how to say a nonsectarian prayer, Lee did not directly control the prayer's content.
The 1992 Supreme Court caseLee v. Weisman was not revolutionary in terms of the First Amendment's interpretation. However, it did cement the precedents from former Establishment Clause cases, and it banned religious prayers during all public school ceremonies. AlthoughLee v. Weisman has not been directly challenged in court, it stems from a strong lineage of Supreme Court cases concerning schools and the First Amendment's religious freedoms.
Works Cited
“FindLaw: Lee v. Weisman. FindLaw.” 12 May 2008 navby=CASE&court=US&vol=505&page=577>.
FindLaw.com provides the Supreme Court's response on the ruling of Lee v. Weisman. The majority and minority opinions are also provided on the case's ruling.
“Lee v. Weisman.” 13 May 2008 <
The website offers an overview and somewhat detailed breakdown on Lee v. Weisman.
“Lee v. Weisman – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.” Wikipedia. 12 May 2008
Wikipedia provides background information and analysis of the Supreme Court's ruling on Lee v. Weisman.
“Oyez: Lee v. Weisman, Case Summary.” Oyez. 12 May 2008
Oyez.org's case summary provides a brief overview of the case and its background. The website also states the question that the Supreme Court answered in deciding the case. A brief analysis of the ruling is also provided.
“Oyez: Lee v. Weisman, Oral Argument.” Oyez. 12 May 2008
Oyez.org provides a written transcript of the court room proceedings. An audio recording of the proceedings is also provided.