Prayer in School: Where's the Line?

On March 18th the Texas senate advanced Senate Bill 11, (SB 11) a bill that would allow school boards to vote on a resolution that would require schools in said district to provide all students and employees with a voluntary time slot, specifically outside of instruction time, for the purpose of prayer and reading religious texts. Additionally, the bill requires districts and schools to collect a permission slip, signed by a parent or guardian, from all employees and students that wish to partake in the religious experience. The permission slip would acknowledge that the student/employee has a right to make a choice about whether to attend, consent to the religious nature of the meetings, and a waiver of the signers’ rights to pursue future legal state or federal action against this policy. Schools must also ensure that these activities cannot be “in the physical presence, within the hearing of, or in another manner which would constitute an injury in fact within the meaning of the United States or Texas Constitution” of anyone who has not signed this permission slip. It specifically outlines that prayer should be held before school, in areas and classrooms where everyone has signed the form, or implemented in any other method recommended by the attorney general or legal counsel for the district or school. Finally, every school board or school governing body would be required to hold a vote on this policy within six months of the act’s enactment.

Senator Mayes Middleton, the coauthor of the bill, claims that the bill is “about providing a space for free expression of our religion in public schools and open-enrollment charter schools” and argues that it is constitutional as it “does not make participation in prayer or reading religious texts compulsory.” However, opposing senators argue that the policy would intertwine religion and state in a way that they believe violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. With that being said, who’s argument is more in line with what the constitution allows? Furthermore, to what extent is prayer permissible in our public schools?

Examining the legislatures motivations is a common strategy of the Supreme Court in addressing issues of establishment to understand the neutrality and intentions behind a given law, one such case is Edwards V. Aguillard. In which the Supreme Court held that a Louisianna statute requiring public schools to give balanced treatment in regards to teaching “creation science” and “evolution science” had the primary purpose of “[endorsing] a particular religious doctrine” and thus “[furthered] religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.” Since they used Senator Bill Keith's Legislative testimonies to come to this conclusion, it makes sense to examine the motivations of Senator Middleton who said; “our schools should never have been God-free zones and our founders never intended separation of God from the government.” When he was questioned further about the constitutionality of the issue, he said “There's no such thing as separation of church and state.” This is even though as early as the 1947 Everson V. Board decision, which has been upheld and reinforced in multiple instances, the Supreme Court has held that; “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’” Furthermore, the addition of a waiver of rights to pursue litigation against the state in regards to the policy helps to demonstrate that those crafting the law knew that it potentially would violate the Constitution and wanted to avoid being fairly challenged if it does so. Additionally, Senator Donna Campbell said in support of the bill that “There is eternal life and if we don’t expose or introduce our children and others to that, then when they die, they’ll have one birth and two deaths.” A clear reference to the religious idea that nonbelievers will go to “Hell” of some kind, once again reinforcing that the purpose of SB 11 is to advance religion. 

Even though cases such as Kennedy V. Bemerton, in which it was held that Joseph Kennedy’s constitutional right to freely practice religion were violated are referenced to support increasing integration of prayer in school. It is important to remember that Kennedy’s actions took place at an after-school event when there could be no interpretation that his actions were endorsed by the school. SB 11 would allow for prayer during the school day or any other way the attorney general desires, which has ben struck down in a variety of cases, most notably, Stone V. Graham. This is in conjunction with the fact that the school board will make a choice surrounding whether or not to implement the policy, making it the level of integration between church and state impermissible.

In conclusion, while Texas Senate Bill 11 may be seen by some as a constitutional time of prayer during school hours, it is in fact a constitutional violation. I say this as its sole purpose is to further religion, seeks to preeminently prevent any legal action that can be taken because of its constitutional violation, and places far too much power in the hands of elected officials with regards to religious matters. 

https://apnews.com/us-news/joe-kennedy-iii-church-and-state-texas-dan-patrick-donna-campbell-21a2e0674e92ca9ad0dcb8fa32a31fab# 

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB11

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/politics/texas-legislature/texas-senate-school-prayer-ten-commandments-classroom-bills/269-bd62ead9-9511-4c42-ad88-1e7d6277069c

https://senate.texas.gov/news.php?id=20250318a

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/04/texas-legislature-church-state-separation/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/21-418/#tab-opinion-4601251