Croft v. Governor Perry
Title
Description
"The Crofts focus on the addition of the word "pray" [**30] without examining the other changes. But the amendments were introduced as a package to change the start of every school day to include the pledges of allegiance and a more comprehensive list of appropriate activities during the minute of silence (itself changed from a period of silence); in fact, during the legislative process, it was purposefully changed from being a bill that amended the exercise of a right to pray to being one that amended the beginning of the school day."
"The parents argued that the 2003 amendments to § 25.082(d) violated the Establishment Clause of U.S. Const. amend. I. Although the parents had standing to challenge the amendments to the minute of silence statute, the court of appeals determined that the amendments were constitutional and satisfied all three prongs of the Lemon analysis. There was no excessive entanglement, and the primary effect of the amendments was not to advance religion. The most difficult prongfor § 25.082(d) and for moment of silence statutes generallywas legislative purpose. But appellate review of legislative history was deferential, and such deference revealed an adequate secular purpose. While the court of appeals could not allow a "sham" legislative purpose, it deferred to the stated legislative intent of § 25.082(d), which was to promote patriotism and allow for a moment of quiet contemplation. These were valid secular purposes, and were not outweighed by limited legislative history showing that some legislators might have been motivated by religion. Because the amendments survived the Lemon test, they did not constitute an unconstitutional establishment of religion."
"The parents argued that the 2003 amendments to § 25.082(d) violated the Establishment Clause of U.S. Const. amend. I. Although the parents had standing to challenge the amendments to the minute of silence statute, the court of appeals determined that the amendments were constitutional and satisfied all three prongs of the Lemon analysis. There was no excessive entanglement, and the primary effect of the amendments was not to advance religion. The most difficult prongfor § 25.082(d) and for moment of silence statutes generallywas legislative purpose. But appellate review of legislative history was deferential, and such deference revealed an adequate secular purpose. While the court of appeals could not allow a "sham" legislative purpose, it deferred to the stated legislative intent of § 25.082(d), which was to promote patriotism and allow for a moment of quiet contemplation. These were valid secular purposes, and were not outweighed by limited legislative history showing that some legislators might have been motivated by religion. Because the amendments survived the Lemon test, they did not constitute an unconstitutional establishment of religion."
Date
2009-03-16
Type
Court Case
Source
Croft v. Governor of the State of Texas, Rick Perry, 1 12 (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 16, 2009)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/3:2007cv01362/169652/40/
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/3:2007cv01362/169652/40/