Case Document 20 Filed 12/15/14 Page 48 of 53 Page ID #:148 FREEDOM FROM RELIGION foundation PO. BOX 750 MADISON. WI 53701 (608) 256?8900 September I9, 2013 SENT VIA U.S. MAIL EMAIL to: Sylvia Orozco President Chino Valley Board of Education 5l30 Riverside Drive Chino, CA 91710 Re: Prayers at Board of Education Meetings Dear Ms. Orozco and Board Members: am writing on behalfofthe Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) regarding a serious constitutional violation occurring in your school district. We were contacted by a Chino Hills resident about the Chino Valley Board of Education (?Board?) practice of scheduling prayer as part of its meetings. FF RF is a national nonprofit organization with more than 19,000 members, including more than 2,800 members in California. It is our information and understanding that the Board begins every meeting with an ?invocation,? which in practice amounts to a prayer. We understand these prayers are sectarian, include Christian references, and end with ?In Jesus? name, Amen." We further understand that there are frequently children from around the district who attend these meetings for a district showcase. It is beyond the scope ofa public school board to schedule prayer as part of its scheduled meetings. Federal courts have struck down school board practices that include this religious ritual. See Doe v. Indian River School District, 653 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 201 cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1097 (holding that prayer at school board meetings conveys message favoring religion); Coles v. Cleveland Bd. ofEduc., 171 .3d 369 (61h Cir. I999) (?nding that a school board's practice of opening its meetings with prayers violated the Establishment Clause); Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd, 473 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 2006), dismissed on other grounds, 494 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2007) (?nding a school board's practice of opening meetings with sectarian prayer unconstitutional); Bacus v. Palo Verde Unified Sch. Dist., 52 Fed. Appx. 355, (9th Cir. Cal. 2002) (?nding that a school board violated the Establishment Clause in allowing prayers ?in the name of Jesus?). The Supreme Court has continually and consistently struck down prayer by school officials in the public schools. See, Abington Township Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 US. 203 (I963) (declaring as unconstitutional devotional Bible reading and recitation of the Lord?s Prayer in public schools); Engel v. Vita/e, 370 US. 421 (I962) (declaring prayers in public schools unconstitutional); See also Lee v. Weisman, 505 US. 577 (1992) (?nding prayers at public high school graduations an impermissible establishment of religion); Wallace v. Jaf?'ee, 472 US. 38 (1985) (overturning law requiring daily ?period of silence not to exceed one minute for meditation or daily prayer?): Jager v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., 862 F.2d 825 (l Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 490 US. l090 (I989) (holding unconstitutional pre-game invocations at high school football games). in all of the aforementioned cases, the federal courts have struck down prayer in the public school context because it constitutes a government endorsement of religion, which violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor. Case Document 20 Filed 12/15/14 Page 49 of 53 Page ID #2149 The Third Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized in Doe v. Indian River School District that school board prayer is analogous to other school prayer cases when it comes to protecting children from the coercion of school-sponsored prayer, which is heightened in the context of public schools. 653 F.3d at 275. In that case, the court also held that the school board meetings are ?an atmosphere that contains many of the same indicia of coercion and involuntariness that the Supreme Court has recognized elsewhere in its school prayerjurisprudenee.? Id. In Indian River School District, the court?s ?decision [was] premised on careful consideration of the role of students at school boards, the purpose of the school board, and the principles underlying the Supreme Court?s school prayer case law." Id. at 281. The ?nal conclusion was that the school board prayer policy ?[rose] above the level of interaction between church and state that the Establishment Clause permits." Id. at 290. Certainly, a public school board is an essential part of the public school system. See Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ, l7l F.3d at 38l . .the school board, unlike other public bodies, is an integral part of the public school system?). Public school boards exist to set policies, procedures, and standards for education within a community. The issues discussed and decisions made at Board meetings are wholly school-related, affecting the daily lives of district students and parents. in striking down the board's prayers in Coles, the Sixth Circuit found prayers at school board meetings to be squarely within the context of school prayer cases. The court noted, ?although meetings of the school board might be of a variety? than other school-related activities, the fact remains that they are part of the same ?class? as those other activities in that they take place on school property and are inextricably intertwined with the public school system.? Id. at 377. Therefore, prayer at public school board meetings is no different than a prayer given at other school district events and is unconstitutional. Prayer at public school board meetings is unnecessary, inappropriate, and divisive. Calling upon Board members, as well as parents and students of the school, to pray is coercive, embarrassing, and beyond the scope of our secular school system. Board members are free to pray privately or to worship on their own time in their own way. The school board, however, ought not to lend its power and prestige to religion, amounting to a governmental endorsement of religion that excludes the one in ?ve adult Americans and one in three young Americans who are now nonreligious.I We ask that you take immediate action and refrain from scheduling prayers as part of future school board meetings. We further ask that you respond in writing with the steps you are taking to remedy this constitutional violation. Sincerely 7M Andrew L. Seidel Staff Attorney ALS:stg ?Nones on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Af?liation." Pew Research Center, The Pew Forum on Religion Public Life (October 9, 2012) available a!