Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act Has Been Held Unconstitutional
In the case of Sherman v. Township High School District 214, No. 07 C 6048, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, held that the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, 105 ILCS 20/1, is unconstitutional. Further, defendant school districts are permanently enjoined from implementing or enforcing the statute.
In October 2007, the Illinois legislature amended the Illinois Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act as follows: “In each public school classroom the teacher shall observe a brief period of silence with the participation of all the pupils therein assembled at the opening of every school day.” The statute further stated that this period of silence “shall be an opportunity for silent prayer or reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.” Plaintiff alleged that the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act (“Act”) was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and violated due process because it was vague.
Judge Robert W. Gettleman issued a ruling on January 21, 2009. The court found that the Act as written violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it contained no clear secular purpose and its primary effect was to promote certain religions.
There were several bases for the court’s ruling. First, the statute prescribed only two purposes for the period of silence: silent prayer or silent reflection on the day’s activities. The court noted that because prayer was one of the only two options permitted during this period of silence, educators were now forced to instruct pupils about prayer and its meaning. The court held that forcing the introduction of the concept of prayer in schools is what “crosse[d] the line” and violated the Establishment Clause.
The court also held that the Act promoted certain religions, specifically, those religions that observed silent prayer. Because the Act mandated that the period of silence could only be used for silent reflection or silent prayer, those students whose religious practices were neither silent, nor still, are now denied the opportunity to exercise their right to pray in their own way.
Finally, the court held that the Act was unconstitutionally vague because the Act provided no guidance on how the period of silence should be implemented, how long it should last, and whether pupils could pray in a manner that was either audible or required movement. The court rejected the argument that the discretion of the classroom teacher could alleviate these concerns, because monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in public schools requires the courts to be particularly sensitive. Even if teachers were accorded discretion, the fact remained that adherence to the Act would still advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the pupil and his or her family.