School board gains victory in prayer issue

Just shy of five years to the day of being named defendants in a lawsuit regarding school prayer, the Indian River School Board has closed another chapter in the case, after Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. ruled in favor of the district, stating that their policy regarding prayers before regular school board meetings is not unconstitutional.

Farnan concluded that the Indian River School District’s Prayer Policy is constitutional, based on the board being a legislative body, citing the Supreme Court decision Marsh v. Chambers in 1983.

“Thus, the Court concludes that the Indian River School Board’s Prayer Policy appropriately serves these goals and remains within the contours outlined in Marsh for constitutionally permissible legislative prayer.”

In August 2005, the court granted the Indian River School Board’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against individual board members, because ‘the Board Members’ actions were legislative acts, entitling them to absolute immunity.’”

The defense argued whether the question of Marsh had already been decided in that ruling, but ultimately the court chose to hear both arguments in their entirety: “The question whether the School Board’s Prayer Policy is constitutional under that decision requires a more in-depth inquiry, aided by the extensive discovery the parties have taken on the issue.”

Attorney for the Indian River School District Jason Gosselin said both parties should be thankful that such thought went into the decision.

“We are very pleased,” he said this week. “It was obvious that the judge put a lot of time into the arguments and considered the material. His analysis was very thorough. It was lengthy, 56 pages. He went through all the arguments. The parties should be thankful it got a good airing before a judge.”

Gosselin said he had read that the plaintiffs will appeal. He said that “doesn’t surprise me.” Calls to attorneys for plaintiff “Jane Doe” to confirm any decision to appeal were not answered by Coastal Point press time.

“It is an important issue,” Gosselin continued. “It is important to get a resolution. It is important for the Indian River School District and other school districts, so they know what’s permitted and what’s not permitted.”

According to the case background, after the court dismissed the motions against board members as individuals in August 2005, the subjects were separated into phases: the first focusing on the issues surrounding the school board’s policy of opening its public meetings with a prayer or moment of silence and the second phase to cover plaintiffs’ remaining constitutional claims: “alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution arising out of the alleged school sponsored prayer at school functions.”

In January 2008, the parties agreed to settle all claims except those relating to the Board’s prayer policy, a settlement the court approved in February of that year. In March 2008, the Dobriches, the other plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, voluntarily dismissed their claims after they moved outside the district. The “Does” continued in their quest for judgment on constitutionality of the board’s prayer policy.

According to the ruling, the judge concluded that, “Although reasonable people can differ as to whether the Board’s policy is wise, could be more-inclusive or is actually necessary to solemnize board meetings, ‘too much judicial fine-tuning of legislative prayer policies risks unwarranted interference in the internal operations of a coordinate branch.’”

The ruling also found that the “because the school board has not exploited its Prayer Policy to proselytize or advance religion, the Court may not demand anything further.”

The ruling in its entirety can be read online at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/JJF/Opinions/Current/Feb2010/05-120.pdf. The district’s prayer policy is available online at http://www.irsd.net/parents-students/policy-manual/board-governance-oper....