Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Mercer County

    In Mercer County, West Virginia, there is a program within the elementary and middle schools referred to as Bible in the School (“BITS”). This program was implemented into the County’s curriculum in 1986 and the Mercer County Board of Education administered it. The Board carried out all responsibilities of the program besides funding. The Bluefield Bible Study Fund funded the program by taking care of expenses that the program imposed onto the County. The people targeted by the Plaintiffs, in this case, are Deborah Akers and Rebecca Peery. Deborah Akers is the Superintendent of Mercer County schools and therefore is partly responsible for the BITS program implementation throughout the schools. Rebecca Peery is the principal of Memorial Primary School in Mercer County and is responsible for approving the policies and lessons that come with the BITS program. Between the years of 2012 and 2016, Mercer County resident, Elizabeth Deal, sent her daughter to the Memorial Primary School (run by Peery). Deal did not approve of the Bible in the School program and consequently did not allow her daughter to participate. Unfortunately, this resulted in her daughter feeling excluded from her peers and being, allegedly, harassed. This led to Elizabeth Deal transferring her daughter to a different school that was not sponsoring BITS. 

    The West Virginia District Court had to determine whether or not the BITS program was a violation of the Establishment Clause. Furthermore, there was the question of responsibility and whether Principal Peery was entitled to qualified immunity. To decide the first part, the Court utilized the Lemon Test on the Bible in the School program. In this case, there is no secular purpose present, it is advancing religions that adhere to the Christian Bible, and it is creating entanglement between the County and religion. For all three prongs of the test, the BITS program failed and therefore should not be permitted within Mercer County public schools. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court was faced with determining whether teaching creationism in Louisiana schools was a violation of the Establishment Clause. In this case, the Court used the Lemon Test and found that it failed all three components. The teaching of creationism has a direct link to religious beliefs and therefore it cannot be referred to as secular. The West Virginia District Court concluded that the Bible in Schools program was a violation of the Establishment Clause and therefore enforced the suspension of all BITS classes in Mercer County. 

    This, however, was not the only problem brought forth by the Plaintiffs. In their argument, they placed the responsibility of these programs on Deborah Akers and, more specifically, Rebecca Peery. The West Virginia District Court denied the motion to dismiss filed by Peery but concluded that it is not possible to determine whether Peery is entitled to qualified immunity, but I disagree with this. When looking into cases involving qualified immunity, the Court must see if there was a constitutional violation and if the right violated was established. The implementation of a program, such as the Bible in the School, that advances a particular religion is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. It was the responsibility of Peery to develop school policies and manage how the students were instructed daily. She was aware of the religious content that accompanied the BITS program and still proceeded to approve of the program and its teachings. In Reynolds v. United States, the Court dealt with a man who, as part of his Mormon faith, participated in polygamy. The Court ruled that Reynolds knew his actions were illegal and yet he still married twice, which they saw as criminal intent. In this case, I would not go as far as to say Principal Peery had criminal intent, but the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause are no secret. As a principal of a school, it is Peery’s responsibility to protect students and their rights. To enforce a religious-based program, such as BITS, Peery promoted Christianity over other religions. This resulted in students, such as Elizabeth Deal’s daughter, feeling ostracized. Therefore, it can be argued that Peery violated the Establishment Clause, which is an established right. 

    Overall, I agree with the Court’s decision that the BITS program violated the Establishment Clause, but I do not believe that there has been enough done beyond the suspension of the program. Individuals, such as Rebecca Peery and Deborah Akers, should be held responsible for the part they played in the implementation of the program. The current state of the case is focused on this directly. Peery motioned for the case to be dismissed, but this was denied by the district court. Now, it must be determined whether Peery is entitled to qualified immunity, to which I would say no. Those involved in this case knew the religious implications of the Bible in the Schools program and this should not go unresolved