Print the entire packet with all case law here (152 pages; 1.7 MB)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE YMCA MODEL SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
No. 2007-001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: All characters in this case are imaginary and any resemblance to any real individual is entirely coincidental.
ROBERT B. and SHARON D. DANIELS, individually and on behalf of their son, JONATHAN DANIELS, Plaintiffs and Appellants
v.
GRASSLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants and Respondents
v.
RICHARD and LYNNE O’MALLEY, JOE and HADASSAH ABRAHAM, individually and on behalf of their sons, PATRICK O’MALLEY and SETH ABRAHAM,
Defendants-Intervenors and Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Fremont High School Packers of Fremont, Montana, were the class B football champions of 2004. When the starting quarterback was sacked and injured his knee in the fourth quarter of the championship game, backup quarterback Jonathan Daniels came off the bench and became the instant town hero when he threw the winning pass. In 2005-2006, his senior year, Jonathan was the obvious choice for starting quarterback, and the coach made him team captain.
Between the 2004 and 2005 seasons, Jonathan became involved with the youth group at the Revivalist Evangelical Church. He also went to a summer football camp designed specifically for Christian athletes. There, pregame team prayer was encouraged. "We can't pray over the PA system before the game anymore," said the camp counselors, "but we can still pray in the privacy of the locker room."
Returning to Fremont High School, Jonathan decided that, as team captain, he had a responsibility to lead his team to Christianity as well as victory. He knew that some team members might not appreciate proselytizing, but he figured that no one would object to a pregame prayer for the safety of the players and offering thanks for the fans.
So Jonathan began to lead a prayer with teammates in the locker room preceding the team huddle and cheer that the Packers traditionally have engaged in before leaving for the field. There were a few rolled eyeballs and groans at first, but when the team ran up a 3-0 record, many of the other players began to think Jonathan was onto something. Six team members joined Jonathan at meetings of the Revivalist Evangelical youth group. By the time their record was 5-0, eleven members of the team attended.
Two players, sophomores Patrick O’Malley and Seth Abraham, did not. They didn't want to be bad sports, they weren't starters, and they sure didn't want to hurt the team's streak, but they had their own deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs. They weren't against prayer in general, but they weren't comfortable with Jonathan's style. After the third game, they quietly asked the head coach, Titan Denzel, if they had to participate in the pregame prayer session.
Coach Denzel said "you don't have to, of course, but use your own judgment about how it looks to the rest of the team. You know I don't have anything to do with this. It's Daniels's thing." They thought about it for a while, and participated in a couple more prayer sessions, but felt very uncomfortable. So, before the sixth game, Patrick and Seth quietly remained by themselves during the prayer and spent some time alone with their own thoughts. The team lost the game.
When other team members blamed Patrick and Seth for snapping the streak, Coach Denzel pointed out that they both warmed the bench for the entire game, so how could they cause the loss? Jonathan next had a private talk with them, saying that it was OK with him that they had different beliefs, but suggested that maybe they should participate with the rest of the team. "You guys can lead the next prayer," he suggested. "It's probably a good idea so people don't think it's all about me, anyway. You don't even have to mention Jesus if you don't want to. We all worship the same God."
Patrick and Seth talked with their parents, and both families decided to call Coach Denzel and ask him to tell Jonathan to tone it down. "We don't care if he prays, but when he gets everyone else to pray, he's the team captain. That's state sponsored religion," said the Abrahams. "Our boys don't have a real chance to say no. Look at the harassment they put up with when you lost that game," said the O’Malleys.
However, when Coach Denzel asked Jonathan to stop the pregame group prayer and just quietly say his own prayer, Jonathan said, "Coach, I gotta 'let my light shine before men,' so that all may see." Remembering the advice of his camp counselors, he added, "you can't prohibit my free exercise of religion. I'm not forcing anyone to pray with me. Everyone wants to, except those two guys."
Coach Denzel talked to the school principal, Ruth Solomon, and the school district's attorney, and together they decided that they were on safer legal ground to tell Jonathan not to lead a group prayer in the locker room. "Sorry Daniels," said the coach, "but some people feel a lot of pressure to do something they aren't comfortable with. We aren't stopping you from worshiping as you please; we just don't want to interfere with anyone else's worship, either."
A week later, after the team lost another game, Mr. and Mrs. Daniels, on behalf of Jonathan, filed a compliant with the Grassland County School Board, charging that Coach Denzel and Principal Solomon interfered with Jonathan's free exercise of religion. The O’Malleys and Abrahams told school board members that they would file a lawsuit if the board kept allowing Jonathan's prayer sessions. After hearing testimony from everyone involved, the school board dismissed the Daniels' complaint and upheld the school administration, saying Jonathan occupied a position of leadership, so therefore he appeared to be acting on behalf of the public school, and state sponsorship of religion was unconstitutional.
One week after the school board announced their decision, the Daniels filed suit against the school board in the Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, charging that the board illegally infringed on their son's free exercise of religion under both the Montana and U.S. Constitutions. The Daniels sought an injunction to allow Jonathan and future students to lead voluntary pregame prayers and sought only nominal damages in the lawsuit. The O’Malley and Abraham families sought and obtained the district court's permission to join as third party intervenors in the case to protect their sons' interests (intervenors have an interest in the outcome of a case, but one which may not be exactly the same as any of the main parties).
While the case was pending, the team went on to a winning season, but lost during the divisional playoffs and didn't go to state. Jonathan Daniels has been offered a full ride scholarship to play college ball for the Grizzlies. Patrick O’Malley played in three games during the season and will probably be a starter next year. Seth Abraham quit the team and went out for track.
The district court found for the school board. The Daniels filed this appeal.
Issue One:
If the school district had allowed Daniels, as a football team captain who was appointed by the coach, to lead a pregame prayer in the team locker room, would that act be state sponsorship of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 5 of the Montana Constitution?
Issue Two:
Did the school district, when they prohibited Daniels (acting on his own volition) from leading the pregame prayer, infringe on Daniels's freedom of speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment and Article II, Sections 5 and 7 of the Montana Constitution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
Montana Constitution, art. II, §§ 4, 5, 7 and 15
Montana Constitution, art. X, §§ 1, 6 and 7
STATUTES:
Mont. Code Ann. § 49-1-102 (1) (2005)
CASES:
Chandler v. Siegelman, 230 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2000)
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 120 S. Ct. 2266, 147 L. Ed.2d 295 (2000)
Chandler v. James, 180 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 1999)
Kaptein v. Conrad School District, 281 Mont. 152, 931 P.2d 1311 (1997)
Collins v. Chandler Unified School District, 644 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1981)
Hofer v. Mont. Dep't of Pub. HHS (In re Hofer),
2005 MT 302, 329 Mont.
368, 124 P.3d 1098 (2005)
NOTES ON AUTHORITIES
The two issues in this case, establishment of religion and free exercise of religion, are often tackled together in case law. Therefore, all cases may contain material relevant to both issues. When possible, cases have been edited to exclude issues not relevant to this fact pattern.
This is a "case of first impression" for Montana, as there are no Montana cases on prayer in public schools. The Kaptein case is included because it is the major Montana case dealing with religion and public schools, and though it isn't about prayer, it suggests how to interpret the Montana Constitution on these issues. Be sure to read the concurrence and the dissent as well as the main opinion. Kaptein also mentions an earlier case, Bartmess, which laid out the legal principles for a student's right to participate in extracurricular activities.
Hofer is the most recent Montana case interpreting the separation of church and state. It is a long, complex decision about whether Hutterites were eligible for Medicaid benefits. Youth Attorneys need to focus on paragraphs 25, (which explains the religious issue as viewed by the majority of the court), and 40 through 43 of the majority opinion (which states the controlling law in Montana and explain the problems with the dissent) and paragraphs 62 through 73 of the dissent, which is a well-written dissent that carefully explains the opposing point of view. It is not controlling law, but may present good arguments to use in a different set of facts, such as the football prayer case here.
Santa Fe v. Doe is the most recent and leading U.S. Supreme Court case on prayer in public schools. Both sides should carefully examine how the fact pattern above is similar or different from Santa Fe. Attorneys for the school board will want to use the majority opinion and point out the similarities. Attorneys for the Danielss will want to distinguish the facts of this case from Santa Fe as well as use parts of the dissent.
Chandler v. Siegelman, an Eleventh Circuit case, does a good job of explaining the Santa Fe case. Both sides should read this case, perhaps even before Santa Fe, as it is such a good summary. This case will be particularly helpful for attorneys representing the Daniels family. Chandler v. James, also known as "Chandler I," is included for additional background. Chandler I has a good summary of almost all the major U.S. Supreme Court decisions on prayer in public schools and may also be needed to make sense of Chandler v. Siegelman.
Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified Sch. Dist, a case out of the 9th circuit (Montana is in the Ninth Circuit) involved a student speech at a commencement ceremony. While it is most useful for attorneys for the school board, it is also sufficiently different from the case here (prior restraint of a public address versus a prayer in the locker room) that attorneys for Daniels can use it to distinguish their position. Collins v. Chandler Unified School District is an older Ninth Circuit case which deals specifically with student-initiated activity and can be contrasted with Chandler v. Siegelman. Remember that these cases are not from Montana law, so where there is a conflict between them, Montana law prevails.
Article II, section 5 of the Montana Constitution is worded almost the same as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but it is VERY important to remember that the Montana Supreme Court has specifically and repeatedly said "...we refuse to 'march lock-step' with the United States Supreme Court where constitutional issues are concerned, even if the applicable State Constitution provisions are identical or nearly identical to those of the United States Constitution." State v. Johnson, 221 Mont. 503, 512, 719 P.2d 1248, 1254 (1986). [Youth attorneys may cite this passage along with other research materials if they wish] What this means in practice is that Montana courts cannot take away rights outlined by the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court, but it can interpret the Montana Constitution to provide MORE rights than are granted by the U.S. Constitution.
The Montana Constitution has a unique provision, Article X, guaranteeing equal educational opportunity, which does not exist in the U.S. Constitution. This provision may be used by both sides to distinguish the various non-Montana cases.
Case Developed by Brenda Wahler, with special thanks to Clay Smith, Chris Tweeten, Lisa Mecklenberg Jackson, and Beth Brenneman for technical assistance.