Roe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., No. 07-2908 (E.D. La. Apr. 22, 2008)
A federal district court has ruled that the distribution of Bibles to elementary school students at a Louisiana school violated the Establishment Clause. In May 2007 the Gideons visited Loranger Middle School, with the permission of the Tangipahoa Parish School Board, to distribute Bibles to fifth-grade students. Principal Andre Pellirin notified the fifth-grade teachers via email that the Bibles would be distributed at a location outside his office. His email emphasized that the distribution was voluntary, stating that teachers should “stress” to students that they are not required to get a Bible. As Jane Roe’s class prepared to get their Bibles, her teacher instructed the students that if they did wish not to obtain a Bible they should remain in the classroom. However, Jane claims she felt pressured to go with the rest of the class to get a Bible because of potential teasing and name calling. When her father learned of this, he sued the school board.
The court began its analysis by setting forth the three tests utilized by courts for determining if the Establishment Clause has been violated. Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), (1) a government action must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) its principal or primary purpose must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. Under the “coercion” test was established in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 597 (1992), the action must have no coercive effect on an individual to support or participate in religion or its exercise. Under the “endorsement” test articulated in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), the action must not appear to a reasonable observer to have the effect of promoting or endorsing religious beliefs. Jane’s father argued that the school distribution of Bibles failed under all three tests. The board countered that distribution of Bibles in schools has only been held unconstitutional when school officials allowed students to be subjected to an element of coercion not present here.
The court conceded that there was no direct pressure by any school official to get a Bible, unlike in Jabr v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 171 F.Supp.2d 653 (W.D. La. 2001), where students were presented individually with a Bible by the principal, or in Berger v. Rensselaer Cent. Sch. Corp., 982 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir. 1993), where students sat through a classroom presentation by the Gideons. However, like the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV) in Peck v. Upshur County Bd. of Educ., 155 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 1998), the court found that the impressionability of young students made this distribution of Bibles unconstitutional because of heightened concerns over coercion. Here, Jane was “subjected to an unconstitutional element of coercion” because she was pressured to participate in the Bible distribution or run the risk of being teased or ridiculed by classmates. The distribution in this case also violated all three prongs of the Lemon test and the endorsement test, the court held, finding that the action had no secular purpose, evidenced a preference towards religion, entangled teachers in determining who wanted a Bible and who did not and directing students to the distribution, and appeared to endorse Christianity.
Roe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., No. 07-2908 (E.D. La. Apr. 22, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: For another recent case invalidating distribution of Bibles to younger students in school by the Gideons International, see below.]
NSBA School Law pages on Roark v. South Iron R-1 Sch. Dist.