LSTD 510 6-1 CASE BRIEF AND COMMENT ANALYSIS

This is an Owlisdom, LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief and Comment Analysis assignment; which entails writing a formal legal case brief on either Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) or Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. ___ (2022). You will compare your selected case against a related case, analyze the court reasoning, dissents, and constitutional provisions. This guide gives you step by step instructions on how to structure your case brief as well as your comment analysis.

For this assignment, you will write a formal legal case brief on either Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)  Or Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. ___ (2022)

CASE BRIEF

• Give the complete LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief And Comment Analysis citation of the case.

Case Citation: The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).

• Find out the petitioner and respondent of LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief And Comment Analysis.t.

Parties: Petitioner: In the Santa Fe Independent School District

Respondent: Individually and on behalf of her minor children, Doe, et al.

• Summarize the LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief And Comment Analysis essentual facts of the case.

Facts: At Santa Fe High School, a student council chaplain would give a prayer over the public address system before each home varsity football game. But Mormon and Catholic students and their mothers challenged this practice as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In response, school district adopted a new policy, which while the suit was pending, permitted invocations, including student led and student initiated, at football games.

• The procedural history of the case are outlined.

Procedural History: The District Court reformulated the policy to permit only nonsectarian and non proselytising prayers. They found, however, that even the modified policy was unconstitutional, and the case made its way up to the Supreme Court.

• Then state what is the main legal issue(s) in question..

Issues: The central question was, whether the district policy of allowing student led, student initiated prayer at football games is violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

• State the court’s holdings.

Holdings: The Supreme Court ruled that the policy did violate the Establishment Clause. Because the prayers were given on school property, at an event sponsored by the school, and under the auspices of school administration, the Court decided that the policy constituted a governmental endorsement of religion.

• Explain the court’s reasoning.

Reasoning: According to the Court, the principles set in Lee v. were the anchor of its reasoning.. Where it was held in Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, that government involvement in religion must be strictly circumscribed. The Court held the school district’s policy did not keep itself separate from the religious content of the invocations, and could not truly privatize the speech. The nature of the speech did not change from public to private by conversion of the mechanism of student elections. Moreover, the court adverted to the police use of coercive pressure to participate in religious observance, which is forbidden by the Establishment Clause.

• State the court’s decision.

Decision: Affirmed. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion held that the Santa Fe Independent School District policy permitting student speeches, including prayers, at football games, if initiated and led by students, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by virtue of the coercive environment and the fact that the government is an enthusiastic endorser of religion.

If you brief Santa Fe Independent School District, then in your comment section, explain how it compares to Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), which you reviewed in our W6 Discussion.

COMMENT AND COMPARISON ANALYSIS Comment and Comparison to Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001)

• Compare your selected case with the related case and comment on 6-1 Case Brief And Case analysis 510.e.

In Good News Club v. The Supreme Court held that such a religious club could meet on school property after hours if other secular clubs were authorized to do so, as at Milford Central School. Excluding the religious club, this decision made clear, would have amounted to viewpoint discrimination and that the First Amendment prohibits exclusion of private, voluntary speech because it is religious.

What did the dissenting justices opine? Did the Court in Good News Club interpret the Constitution differently than the Court in Santa Fe Independent School District? What was the key Constitutional provision that each case analyzed? How would you have decided each case? Explain.

Dissenting Opinion

• Analyse the dissenting opinions of LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief And Comment Analysis in both cases.s.

In a dissent in Santa Fe, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the majority was wrong, finding a skewed adjustment between respecting religious freedoms and expressions in public spaces, in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause facts..

Key Constitutional Provision Analyzed

• Both cases should be identified, analyzed and key constitutional provisions in each should be identified.

Both cases were intensely implicated with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But, their results depended on how they interpreted government endorsement of religion versus protection of private religious expression..

Decision-Making

• How would you have decided each case based on the precedent you had.

My bottom line on this: In Santa Fe, I would agree with the majority that the prayers at school events were too structured and official to be considered a private or personal endorsement of religion, which is constitutionally not a good thing.As in Good News Club, I agree with the Court that the club’s exclusion constituted viewpoint discrimination and that the school offered no sufficient reason to subject religious, but not secular, content to differential treatment in its after school activities.

CLOSING

By following these LSTD-510 6-1 Case Brief And Comment Analysis  guidelines, you will be able to effectively brief a legal case, compare it with a related case, and provide a well-supported analysis that demonstrates your understanding of the legal principles involved.In the next module of  LSTD 510 7-1 PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

Following these LSTD 510 6-1 Case Brief and Comment Analysis guidelines, you can brief a legal case, compare it with another case, and offer a well supported analysis to demonstrate your understanding of the legal principles dealt with in LSTD 510 7-1 PRESIDENTIAL POWER, etc.

REFERENCES

Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)