IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Joseph and Mary Smith, Plaintiffs

v.
Wheaton School District, Defendant

OPINION OF THE COURT

Ben Capobianco

IT IS ORDERED that the Wheaton School Districts Motion for Summary Judgment be:
_________ granted.
_____X_____ denied.

FACTS
The facts of the case before the Supreme Court of the United States of America are as
follows.
In 2002, the state of Indiana instituted a statute reading, The Pledge of Allegiance shall
be recited each school day by pupils in elementary educational institutions supported or
maintained in whole or in part by public fund. Ind. Rev. Stat. ch. 122, sec. 3. The statute was
put in place as a reaction to the September 11th terrorist acts. Ever since the institution of this law,
Dickinson Elementary School, in the Wheaton School District of Indiana, leads its students in the
Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each day. The Wheaton School District allows students
to refrain from participation in the Pledge by either remaining silent or leaving the room.
Residents of Wheaton, Indiana, Joseph and Mary Smith, have an eight-year-old daughter,
Olivia, enrolled in the third grade at Dickinson Elementary School. The Smiths are Anabaptist
Mennonites, and they abide by the Mennonite Confession of Faith, which reads, primary
allegiance of all Christians is to Christs kingdom, not to the state or society. Because their
citizenship is in heaven, Christians are called to resist the idolatrous temptation to give to the
state the devotion that is owed to God. Based on the Mennonite Confession of Faith, the Smiths
claim that the state mandated recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance conflicts with their own
religious beliefs, and violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the Constitution.
The Smiths further claim that the statute regarding the Pledge of Allegiance constitutes a state
establishment of religion. The Smiths filed suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana. After discovery, in which the facts of the case as described above
were ascertained, the Wheaton School District has filed a motion for summary judgment.

ISSUE
The issue before the Court is as follows: Does the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance and
its phrase under God in a public school violate the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution?

RATIONALE
I
The Establishment Clause exists to protect the state and the church from each other. By
keeping the two entities separate, the integrity of the church and the state can be preserved. An
overlap of church and state could, and historically often has, resulted in the contamination of the
churchs religious beliefs, and the states political beliefs. The Establishment Clause is further
meant to protect the people from religious oppression or rule. A state that is connected to the
church inherently threatens the religious liberty and autonomy of the people. The Establishment
Clause exists to act as a safeguard against the aforementioned circumstances. This court
recognizes the importance of the Coercion Test in any matter relevant to the Establishment
Clause. The Coercion Test simply asks whether or not a statute coerces any individuals into
religion or religious exercise. The court uses the standard of a reasonable observer to determine
the presence or absence of coercion in any given case. The legislature has no constitutional
grounds to coerce individuals into any religious action or belief, and therefore if a statute fails to
pass the Coercion Test, it is deemed unconstitutional.
The Coercion Test, as applied to past cases, demonstrates the courts dedication to
upholding the United States Constitution and the Establishment Clause requiring a separation of
Church and State. In Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), the court applied the Coercion Test to

a case of schools inviting clergy members to offer prayers at school graduation ceremonies. In
this case, the court held that the schools in question were in violation of the Establishment
Clause by failing the Coercion Test. A religious speaker offering a prayer at a public school event
forces students to engage with religion. The fact that students must observe the prayer and
participate in it to the extent of respectfully standing in silence decidedly coerces individuals into
a religious experience.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), a case quite
similar to the one at hand, again makes use of idea of coercion. The Coercion Test was not
officially created for many years after this case; however, the courts reasoning shows a clear
analysis of the presence of coercion. The West Virginia Board of Education required all public
schools to conduct the Pledge of Allegiance with a salute to the American flag. In a 6-3 decision,
the court ruled that the required recital of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional as it forces
students to pledge to and support beliefs and values designed by the state.
The rulings of Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) and Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) are
powerful and relevant precedent to the case at hand. The courts past rulings on cases dealing with
the Establishment Clause show a firm belief in protecting the separation of church and state by
strictly applying the Coercion Test. In the case of Smith v. Wheaton School District, the recital of
the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools does subject students to a situation in which they are
pressured by an actor of the state to espouse beliefs with religious connotations.
II
The Endorsement Test is another method by which the courts have historically addressed
issues regarding the Establishment Clause. The Endorsement Test simply asks whether a
reasonable observer would see the government endorsing or denying any religious beliefs. If

something is found to violate the Endorsement Test, it is necessarily an unconstitutional act by

the state. In the case of Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the
court ruled that public, student-led prayer at public school events constitutes an endorsement of
religion, and therefore is unconstitutional. The Santa Fe school that used this system had a
student-run practice of electing a student to offer a prayer over the public address system before
varsity football games. Despite being student-led, the court found that due to the public nature of
the pre-game prayer, and the fact that the game itself was on school grounds and run and
organized by the school constituted a direct endorsement of religion.
Based on past rulings and the application of the Endorsement Test, the court finds that a
reasonable observer could see a direct endorsement of religion through the recital of the Pledge
of Allegiance. The exclusion of any other deitys name, and the inclusion of the phrase under
God, strongly implies the reference of the Christian God, and therefore the endorsement not
only of religion, but of a specific religion. The endorsement of a specific religious identification
is a source of concern for the court, as it implies a state established religion, which is exactly
what the Establishment Clause is designed to guard against (Santa Fe, 530 U.S. 290, 12 (2000)).
III
The court will apply the Lemon Test in order to determine whether or not the Indiana
statute requiring the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional. The Lemon Test states
that in order for a law to be constitutional it must have a secular purpose, its primary effect must
not advance or inhibit religion, and it must not foster excessive government entanglement with
religion. First, the statute at question in this case does not appear to have a secular purpose. In
the case of Santa Fe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the court found that prayer at a school function does
not serve a primarily secular function. Although prayer is more explicitly religious than the

Pledge of Allegiance, the act of pledging allegiance to a nation under God serves a directly
religious purpose by engaging in a specific religious affiliation and referencing specific, religious
values. While the Pledge of Allegiance could also serve the secular purpose of appreciating
history and patriotism, the inclusion of the phrase under God directly serves a religious
purpose.
The second prong of the Lemon Test states that the statutes primary effect must not
advance or inhibit religion. The act of pledging to a nation under God, certainly does not
inhibit religion. The existence of the phrase, and the historical and religious context of the
phrases meaning seem to suggest a direct advancement of religion. The Pledge of Allegiance
with its phrase under God clearly advances and supports God, and therefore, as many belief
systems dont hold to a God, the support of this deity directly supports some religious beliefs.
By engaging in the mention of God in a clearly positive light, the Pledge of Allegiance sends a
direct message of advancement of religion.
The third and final prong of the Lemon Test demands that the statue does not foster an
excessive government entanglement with religion. The dissenting opinion of Justices Brennan
and Marshal in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), makes use of this idea of excessive
government entanglement with religion. Although this case was dealing with legislative prayer,
the principle remains relevant. The required recital of the Pledge of Allegiance is a direct
entanglement with religion. The Pledge of Allegiance directly refers to God and asks people to
pledge allegiance to a nation under that God. The state of Indiana is requiring students to recite
words with tangible religious meanings. Due to the states direct involvement with religion
through the Pledge of Allegiance, the statue in question fails to pass the third prong of the Lemon
Test.

HOLDING
In light of the reasons discussed above, the court holds that the Indiana statue and its
application to the Wheaton School district is unconstitutional. By requiring public schools to
begin each day with a recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, the statue violates the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

Word Count: 1,616