In Rob We Trust

Abstract

In 1990, the Illinois legislature changed the name and wording of its meditation statute. Silent Reflection Act, which dates back to 1969, changed to Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act. The 1969 version provided that public school teachers observe a period of silence. ... not as a religious exercise but ... as an opportunity for or for reflection on the anticipated activities of the The amended version added this provision: Student ... [S]tudents in the public schools may voluntarily engage in individually initiated, nondisruptive that, consistent with the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the United States and Illinois Constitutions, is not sponsored, promoted, or endorsed in any manner by the school or any school employee. In 2007, the legislature amended the first sentence so that public school teachers shall observe a period of silence, thus making it mandatory. As a result, Township High School District 214 in the northern Chicago suburbs began implementing the new law by announcing a moment of at the start of each school day. Robert I. Sherman, on behalf of his daughter, who was a in the district, sued both the district and the state in federal court, claiming the statute violated the Establishment Clause and was unconstitutionally vague. The Court's Rulings On Nov. 15, 2007, the federal district court granted Sherman's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the defendants' motion for dismissal. (1) Soon thereafter, the court granted the motion for two organizations to appear as amici curiae--the ACLU of Illinois for the plaintiff, Sherman, and the Alliance Defense Fund for the defendants. On March 28, 2008, the court granted Sherman's motion to certify the suit as a bilateral class action, which means that it affected students generally and Illinois districts generally. (2) The defendants submitted expert reports to the court on the effects of the statute on schoolchildren of various ages. In addition, the state superintendent provided results of a survey he conducted of the 873 districts in Illinois on how they interpreted and observed the statute's mandates. On Jan. 21, 2009, the court issued a summary judgment in Sherman's favor. (3) First, the court concluded that the amended statute violated the Establishment Clause for two alternative reasons: 1) The plain language suggests an intent to force the introduction of by requiring the teacher to explain to students the limited boundaries of silent prayer and silent reflection, and 2) the legislative history evidences this fatal intent by first adding student prayer to the title of the act and then changing the primary provision from permissive to mandatory. The court also concluded that the act was unconstitutionally vague because it provides no direction as to how the 'period' of silence would be implemented, how long the period should last, and whether pupils would be permitted to pray in a manner that was either audible or required movement. In reaching its conclusions about the Establishment Clause, the court credited the plaintiff's expert, a child and adolescent psychiatrist who opined that elementary school students will not understand reflection in relation to prayer; middle school students will be subjected to peer pressure to pray; and that high school students may act out in defiance. Conversely, the court found the defendant's expert report of negligible value because the psychologist had little experience with children and adolescents, and her opinion that some students could benefit from the statute didn't change the applicable analysis under the Establishment Clause. The defendants' appeal is pending at the Seventh Circuit. The odds appear to favor Sherman's side, but objectivity and certainty are difficult in religion cases. …