February En Banc Part II: Doe v. Elmbrook School District

23 February 2012 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

On February 9, the Seventh Circuit heard en banc the thorny issue of whether conducting a public high school graduation ceremony in a church violates the First Amendment. The panel decision, written by Judge Ripple and joined by Chief Judge Easterbrook, affirmed the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s ruling that holding the ceremonies for Brookfield Central and Brookfield East in the Elmbrook Church sanctuary did not offend the Establishment Clause. Judge Flaum dissented.

The en banc argument suggests that the judges are divided on analytic approach and outcome. The plaintiffs’ counsel, who argued that holding graduation in a church has an impermissible endorsement effect, was met first with a question from Judge Posner about the nature of the perceived harm. Judge Wood later suggested that the harm might be the feeling of exclusion by some non-Christians. Some members of the Court also appeared concerned about the breadth of the plaintiffs’ proposed rule, inquiring whether a school outing to visit a cathedral or a municipality’s decision to put a polling place in a church would offend the Constitution. Judge Posner asked whether his public high school’s decision to hold ballroom dancing at a church would have been unconstitutional under the plaintiffs’ understanding of the First Amendment. And Judge Ripple queried whether, in the plaintiffs’ view, a public school-sponsored trip to Arlington should be prohibited because of the many crosses marking soldier burial sites. In response to counsel’s attempt to invoke the extent of the religious iconography present in Elmbrook church,  Judge Wood, who otherwise seemed receptive to the plaintiffs’ claim, joined Judge Posner in expressing skepticism about creating a jurisprudence that requires a federal court to scrutinize the interior design of religious buildings to decide whether the decor crosses a prohibited line.

Counsel for the school district was met with equally skeptical questioning from several judges. Much of the inquiry focused on the presence of the fact that the graduation occurred in a religious sanctuary. The district’s counsel essentially embraced the position that the Establishment Clause is not violated simply because some persons will choose not to attend graduation if it occurs in a place of worship other than their own. She was not willing, however, to concede that a village board could hold its meetings in the church sanctuary, at least if the history and context of the decision might suggest to a “reasonable objective observer” that the village was endorsing religion. Debate followed about whether the “reasonable observer” was a person who held beliefs other than those of the arguably endorsed religion — even beliefs that would prohibit them from attending activities in a church.

Identifying this “reasonable objective observer” to decide whether there is an impermissible endorsement of religion is no easy task. One could argue the hypothetical observer should be agnostic, burdened with neither the sensitivities of the minorities or the comfort of the majority with respect to the religious display at issue. One the other hand, if one views the purpose of the inquiry as deciding whether the government has impermissibly burdened persons with exposure to religious iconography that they do not favor, then it may be perfectly sensible to judge the impact from the standpoint of an “objective other-believer.” At all events, if the argument is any indicator, the judges are unlikely to reach unanimity on whether the decision to hold this government-sponsored graduation ceremony in a church sanctuary offends the First Amendment.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services