Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District

Last updated
Nicholas Lassonde
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Full case nameLassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District
Argued2003-01-17 2003
Citation(s)320 F.3d 979
Holding
There is no room in Cole for a public school to disclaim sectarian, proselytizing religious speech at a graduation ceremony.
Laws applied
Establishment Clause, California Constitution

Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District [1] is a case about First Amendment freedoms and the separation between church and state. A student of Amador Valley High School claimed a violation of his first amendment right of speech when parts of his salutatorian speech were censored. The case went up to the US Court of Appeals. [2] This case is an important case in educational law concerning religious expression on school campuses. [3]

Factual and Procedural History

Because of his grade-point average of 4.24, Nicholas Lassonde, the Plaintiff, was one of two co-salutatorians of the Amador Valley High School class of 1999. He was consequently invited to deliver a speech at the school's graduation ceremony. Lassonde, who is a devout Christian, drafted a speech that quoted extensively from the Bible. In his declaration, he explained that he intended it to "express[][his] desire for [his] fellow graduates to develop a personal relationship with God through faith in Christ in order to better their lives." [4]

The Principal of the high school, Coupe, who oversaw the graduation ceremony, asked Lassonde to submit a draft of his speech; Coupe reviewed the draft and, in conjunction with the school district's counsel, determined that allowing a student to deliver overtly proselytizing comments at a public high school's graduation ceremony would violate the Establishment Clauses of both the United States and the California Constitutions. Accordingly, Coupe and the district's counsel advised Lassonde that references to God as they related to his own beliefs were permissible, but that proselytizing comments were not. [4]

The three portions of his speech that the school told him to remove were:

I urge you to seek out the Lord, and let Him guide you. Through His power, you can stand tall in the face of darkness, and survive the trends of "modern society." [4]

As Psalm 146 says, "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot even save themselves. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing. Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his God, the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them — the Lord, who remains faithful forever. He upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry. The Lord sets prisoners free, the Lord gives sight to the blind, the Lord lifts up those who are bowed down, the Lord loves the righteous. The Lord watches over the alien and sustains the fatherless and the widow, but he frustrates the ways of the wicked."

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Have you accepted the gift, or will you pay the ultimate price? [4]

Although the school demanded that Lassonde excise these portions, they allowed him to retain several personal references to his religion. For example, his speech began with a dedication to the memory of his grandfather, who had planned to attend the graduation but who, just that past week, had gone "home to be with the Lord." His speech closed with the words, "Good Luck and God Bless!" [4]

Before Lassonde agreed to excise the proselytizing portions of the graduation speech, the parties engaged in discussions to determine what Lassonde would and would not be allowed to say. His counsel suggested that the school district provide a "disclaimer" that would state that the views of the student speakers did not represent the views of the school district. This suggestion was rejected. The parties eventually reached a compromise. Under protest, Lassonde agreed that he would deliver his speech without the proselytizing passages and would hand out copies of the full text of his proposed draft speech just outside the site where the graduation ceremony would be held. [4]

On June 18, 1999, the School held its graduation ceremony, at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, financed and insured entirely by the school district and conducted entirely under its direction. Lassonde delivered his speech and distributed handouts as agreed. When he reached the portions that had been excised, he said that portions had been censored, and told the audience that he would distribute the uncensored speech outside the graduation ceremony and give the full speech on Sunday at his church. [4]

Nearly one year later, Lassonde filed this action seeking damages from the school district; Mary Frances Callan, the school district's superintendent; Jim Negri, assistant superintendent; and Bill Coupe, the principal. He asserted seven claims: violation of his federal constitutional rights to free speech, religious liberty, and equal protection; violation of his state constitutional rights to free speech, religious liberty, and equal protection; and violation of a state education statute. Defendants answered that their actions were protected by qualified immunity. [4]

After dismissing claims against the school district and the school officials in their individual capacities under the Eleventh Amendment, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining Defendants in their official capacities. Relying on the decision in Cole v. Oroville Union High School District [5] the district court concluded that their actions were necessary to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The court rejected Plaintiff's equal protection argument and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim. [4]

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, limited to the question whether, under the first step of the qualified immunity analysis required by Saucier v. Katz [6] that he has alleged facts amounting to a federal constitutional violation—specifically, whether the restriction on his speech violated the First Amendment and whether the school's rejection of his suggested disclaimer as a "less restrictive" alternative to censoring his speech violated the First Amendment. [4]

Related Research Articles

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The court's 6–3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials".

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp on behalf of his son Ellery Schempp, and declared that school-sponsored Bible reading and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools in the United States was unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools, due to violation of the First Amendment. The ruling has been the subject of intense debate.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. A majority of justices held that, as provided by section 608 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, limits on election expenditures are unconstitutional. In a per curiam opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".

Valedictorian is an academic title for the highest-performing student of a graduating class of an academic institution.

Salutatorian is an academic title given in the United States, Armenia, and the Philippines to the second-highest-ranked graduate of the entire graduating class of a specific discipline. Only the valedictorian is ranked higher. This honor is traditionally based on grade point average (GPA) and number of credits taken, but consideration may also be given to other factors such as co-curricular and extracurricular activities. The title comes from the salutatorian's traditional role as the first speaker at a graduation ceremony, delivering the salutation. In a high school setting, a salutatorian may also be asked to speak about the current graduating class or to deliver an invocation or benediction. In some instances, the salutatorian may even deliver an introduction for the valedictorian. The general themes of a salutation and valediction are usually of growth, outlook towards the future, and thankfulness.

Symbolic speech is a legal term in United States law used to describe actions that purposefully and discernibly convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it. Symbolic speech is recognized as being protected under the First Amendment as a form of speech, but this is not expressly written as such in the document. One possible explanation as to why the Framers did not address this issue in the Bill of Rights is because the primary forms for both political debate and protest in their time were verbal expression and published word, and they may have been unaware of the possibility of future people using non-verbal expression. Symbolic speech is distinguished from pure speech, which is the communication of ideas through spoken or written words or through conduct limited in form to that necessary to convey the idea.

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6–3 decision.

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court decision regarding school prayer. It was the first major school prayer case decided by the Rehnquist Court. It held that schools may not sponsor clerics to conduct even non-denominational prayer. The Court followed a broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause that had been standard for decades at the nation's highest court, a reaffirmation of the principles of such landmark cases as Engel v. Vitale and Abington v. Schempp.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the suspension of a high school student who delivered a sexually suggestive speech at a school assembly. The case involved free speech in public schools.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas More Law Center</span> Christian conservative law firm in Michigan, US

The Thomas More Law Center is a Christian, conservative, nonprofit, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and active throughout the United States. According to its website, its goals are to "preserve America's Judeo-Christian heritage, defend the religious freedom of Christians, restore time-honored moral and family values, protect the sanctity of human life, and promote a strong national defense and a free and sovereign United States of America."

The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States has been criticized on several grounds. Its use in government funded schools has been the most controversial, as critics contend that a government-sanctioned endorsement of religion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Arguments against the pledge include that the pledge itself is incompatible with democracy and freedom, that it is a form of nationalistic indoctrination, that pledges of allegiance are features of totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany, and that the pledge was written to honor Christopher Columbus and to sell flags.

Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amador Valley High School</span> Public high school in Pleasanton, California

Amador Valley High School is a comprehensive public high school in Pleasanton, California. It is one of three high schools in the Pleasanton Unified School District, along with Foothill High School and Village High School.

<i>Guiles v. Marineau</i>

In Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F.3d 320, cert. denied by 127 S.Ct. 3054 (2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States protect the right of a student in the public schools to wear a shirt insulting the President of the United States and depicting images relating to drugs and alcohol.

Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (AOSI) is a U.S. public charity organized in 2003 under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977), often shortened to Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, was a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision arising from a fired teacher's lawsuit against his former employer, the Mount Healthy City Schools. The Court considered three issues: whether federal-question jurisdiction existed in the case, whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal lawsuits against school districts, and whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevented the district, as a government agency, from firing or otherwise disciplining an employee for constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern where the same action might have taken place for other, unprotected activities. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion.

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 (1979), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the free speech rights of public employees. The Court held unanimously in favor of a schoolteacher fired for her critical remarks in conversations with her principal. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion, with a short concurrence by John Paul Stevens.

Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established as forums for student expression.

References

  1. ↑ 320 F. 3d 979 (9th Cir. 2003)
  2. ↑ "Supreme Court". Journal of Law and Education. 2004.
  3. ↑ "Table of contents for The best interests of the student". catdir.loc.gov.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "320 F3d 979 Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District". Open Jurist. Retrieved 6 January 2010.
  5. ↑ 228 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000)
  6. ↑ 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.