News: Rights Watch
Latest Supreme Court Rulings Raise Questions for Schools

Church-state and gay rights decisions will impact local districts.

In three closely watched cases decided last June, the Supreme Court struck down student-led prayer at high school football games, upheld the Boy Scouts' right to discriminate against gays, and okayed some forms of state aid to private and religious schools.

• n In the prayer case, several parents had challenged a policy of the Santa Fe school district in Texas that allowed elected student speakers to deliver "invocations" over the public address system before home football games.

  In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that the policy runs afoul of the First Amendment. The pregame prayer, the Court said, is "prayer sponsored by the school" that will be perceived by students "as stamped with the school's seal of approval."

  The prayer, the Court added, "has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship."

  The majority opinion also stressed that students still are free to pray on their own "at any time before, during or after the school day." They just don't have the right to pray over the PA system at a school event.

  In a strong dissent, Chief Justice Rehnquist complained that the majority opinion "bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life."

  A week after the ruling in the Santa Fe case, the Court overturned an appeals court decision from Alabama that allowed student-led prayer at school assemblies, graduation, sporting events, and other school-related events. The High Court told the appeals court to reconsider its decision in light of the football prayer case.

• In a 5-4 ruling in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to deny membership to gay youth and leaders.

  Decorated Eagle Scout James Dale had challenged BSA's decision to oust him as scoutmaster of a New Jersey troop after learning that he was gay. The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled that BSA violated a state law banning discrimination in places of public accommodation.

  The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, declaring that the state can't require the Scouts to accept Dale as a scoutmaster because that would violate BSA's First Amendment right "to oppose or disfavor homosexual conduct."

  Dale's attorney, Evan Wolfson, called the Court's ruling a "Pyrrhic victory for the BSA leadership. They have won for themselves the dubious right to be bigoted and exclusionary."

  According to David Buckel, an attorney with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Dale decision could have a significant impact on public school districts, which are one of the largest sponsors of Boy Scout troops.

  Buckel warns that districts now may have to withdraw official sponsorship of Boy Scout troops because of their anti-gay policy. Because schools are public institutions, he argues, their official sponsorship of discriminatory organizations is "probably unconstitutional."

  In response to the Dale decision, delegates to this summer's NEA Representative Assembly adopted a New Business Item calling on NEA to "urge state and local affiliates to work with school boards to establish policies requiring that all private organizations using school facilities have nondiscriminatory membership policies."

• In the third case, Mitchell v. Helms, the Court ruled that public funds can be used to provide library and instructional materials--including computer software and hardware--to private and sectarian schools.

  In a splintered 4-2-3 decision, a majority of the justices held that the federal program does not violate the First Amendment's requirement of church-state separation.

  Voucher proponents claim that this decision signals the Court's willingness to uphold private school vouchers. Public school supporters, including U.S. Department of Education Secretary Richard Riley, disagree.

  "The Court's decision today is not about vouchers. Under the [federal program] no funds go to any private school," notes Riley.

  Both sides agree that, since the next President likely will appoint several new justices, the constitutionality of vouchers will be decided by the November election.

-- Michael D. Simpson
NEA Office of General Counsel

On the Docket

Before the Supreme Court recessed for the summer, the Justices agreed to review two cases of interest to NEA members when the Court reconvenes on the first Monday in October.

• In University of Alabama v. Garrett, the Court will decide whether public colleges and universities can be sued for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. That's the federal law banning employment discrimination against persons with disabilities.

  The High Court ruled last January that state workers-- including employees of public colleges and universities --can't sue their employers for violating the federal law against age discrimination. That's because the 11th Amendment shields state entities from suit in federal court.

  There's a real chance the Court will use the same reasoning to strip disabled state employees of federal protection from employment discrimination.

• In Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Court will decide whether two NEA members can sue the president of an anti-union group and a radio station for disclosing the contents of their private telephone conversation, which had been illegally recorded.

  In May of 1993, an unknown person tape-recorded a cell phone conversation between two teacher union officials from Wyoming, Pennsylvania, discussing stalled contract negotiations. During the conversation, the local president joked that they might have to "blow off" the "front porches" of school board members' homes to get their attention.

  The head of the local anti-tax group obtained a copy of the recording and turned it over to a radio station, which broadcast the conversation. The union officials then sued both parties for civil damages as authorized by federal and state anti-wiretapping laws.

  A federal appeals court threw out the lawsuit, ruling that the public's right to obtain information about newsworthy events outweighed the plaintiffs' right to privacy.

  -- M.D.S