Montana school district’s practice of prohibiting students from stating personal religious beliefs during valedictory address violates students’ free speech rights
Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 10-0109 (Mont. Nov. 19, 2010)
Abstract: The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that a school district’s practice of prohibiting students from commenting on their personal religious beliefs during valedictorian speeches violated a student’s federal constitutional free speech rights. It concluded that the practice constituted viewpoint discrimination that could not be justified on the basis that the speech would be perceived as bearing the school’s imprimatur and, thus, viewed by observers as religious endorsement by the school district.
The supreme court also held that the same practice did not unduly burden the student’s state or federal constitutional free exercise of religion rights because it did not require the student to refrain from conduct mandated by her religious beliefs or require her to engage in conduct prohibited by those beliefs to in order to receive an important government benefit, i.e., the privilege of giving a valedictory address.
Facts/Issues:Renee Griffith was a senior at Butte High School (BHS). As valedictorian, she was given the opportunity to speak at the graduation ceremony. After submitting her speech for review, Griffith was informed by BHS Principal John Metz and Butte School District No. 1 (BSD1) Superintendent Charles Uggetti that she could not give the speech unless she removed the phrases referring to God and Christ. Griffith was denied the opportunity to give her valedictory address because she refused to remove the references. After unsuccessfully pursuing the administrative remedies available under the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA) Griffith filed suit in state court against BSD1, Metz and Uggetti.
Relying on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Cole v. Oroville Union High School Dist., 228 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000), the trial court ruled that school district officials who barred a valedictorian from giving a graduation speech that included references to her religious beliefs did not run afoul of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. It concluded that the school district’s policy and practice of banning all religious speech during graduation ceremonies passed constitutional muster because the purpose of the policy was to maintain the district’s neutrality toward religion as required by the Establishment Clause.
Ruling/Rationale: The Montana Supreme Court, in a 6-1 vote, reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case to it. Regarding the federal free speech claim, it determined the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260(1988), that ”the student’s expression in a school-sponsored activity may reasonably be ‘perceive[d] to bear the imprimatur of the school,’” was determinative of whether the BSD1′s ban of religious speech in valedictorian addresses passed constitutional muster. The court found it was unreasonable for BSD1 to conclude that the student’s ”cursory references to her personal religious beliefs could be viewed by those in attendance at the BHS graduation ceremony as a religious endorsement by the School District.”
The supreme court found BSD1′s reliance on Cole misplaced because the speech in Cole was of sectarian, proselytizing nature.”[A] reasonable dissenter or nonbeliever could believe that the school district was compelling implicit participation in the proselytizing, which amounts to unconstitutional governmental sponsorship of religion and a clear Establishment Clause violation.” Unlike Cole, it found that the religious references in the present case would not be viewed by a reasonable observer as bearing “the imprimatur of the School District.” BSD1 explicitly dissociated itself from the student’s speech by printing an unambiguous disclaimer in each graduation program pursuant to district policy. The disclaimer disavowed any endorsement by the school district of any religious expression by students. Lastly, the court found that BSD1 had “violated its own written policies of non-censorship when it prohibited [the student] from giving her chosen remarks.”
Before turning to the free exercise of religion claim, the supreme court determined that the student was entitled to relief under § 1983 because BSD1 is a governmental entity and it violated her constitutionally-protected right to free speech. However, it found that the individual defendants, the principal and superintendent, were not liable for their actions against the student because under state law they are immune from suit for actions performed within the course and scope of their employment.
To succeed on her free exercise claim, noted the court, the student must show that receipt of an important government benefit, in this case the privilege of giving the valedictory speech, is contingent on the student either foregoing religiously mandated conduct or engaging in conduct forbidden by her religion. While it found that the existence of the benefit is clear, the court concluded that the BSD1′s ban of expressions of personal religious speech in valedictory speech did not compel the student to compromise any religious principles. It stated: ”Nothing before this Court indicates either that Griffith’s religious faith mandates she include personal religious expressions in a speech or that her faith proscribes delivering a speech devoid of personal religious expression.”
The dissent disagreed with the majority on applicable test and the conclusion. The “proper test is not whether the speech in question would be constitutionally permissible; rather, it is whether the District ‘acted reasonably to avoid violating the Establishment Clause.’” It concluded that BSD1′s practice of banning religious references was not viewpoint discrimination, but rather justified content-based restrictions in order to avoid an Establishment Clause violation resulting from ”coerced participation in this ‘sharing’ of a sectarian religious experience.”
Griffith v. Butte Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 10-0109 (Mont. Nov. 19, 2010)
[Editor's Note: A summary of the trial court's opinion is available at the first link below. In May 2010, the Associated Press report in the Chicago Tribune that Greenwood High School (IN) had lifted the practice of the principal conducting prior review of student speeches for this year’s graduation ceremony. Before this year, GHS students were required to submit their speeches to the principal in advance for a review of content, grammar and length. GHS officials say speakers will not be stopped [this year] even if they use profane language or deliver politically charged speeches, but declined to discuss why the practice was changed. A summary of the article is at the second link below.]
