Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Texas `Football Prayer' Case.

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court grilled attorneys closely on both sides of the issue during a spirited oral argument March 29 over the constitutionality of school-sponsored prayer before football games in Texas.

The case is being closely watched, since it is the first religion-and-schools dispute before the high court since 1992. Religious Right groups, which favor the pro-prayer policy in place in Santa Fe, Texas, brought out their big gun: attorney Jay Sekulow of TV preacher Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice.

Arguing on behalf of the school district, Sekulow insisted that the policy in Santa Fe, which permits a student elected by his or her peers to give invocational "messages" before football games, is neutral because it is "student led." Sekulow insisted that the prayers are permissible because the decision is left to the student. The attorney attempted to portray the policy as one meant to foster free speech.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was quick to demolish that argument. Under close questioning, Sekulow was forced to admit that under the Santa Fe policy, school officials would not permit certain types of "messages," such as a student calling on the football team to physically assault members of the opposing team.

Justice David Souter followed up, asking Sekulow if a student would be free to give a message insisting that "religion is bunk." Although Sekulow argued that a student could give such a message, Souter countered that the school district would probably not allow it, since it would not qualify as an invocation.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, generally regarded as a swing vote in the case, seemed troubled by the district's policy of allowing students to vote on having prayer. "So they have a school election on whether or not there should be prayer," he said. "That, I think, is what our Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment] jurisprudence seeks to keep out of schools."

Texas Attorney General John Cornyn joined Sekulow in arguing on behalf of the prayer policy. Since it is unusual for a state attorney general to defend a local school district at the highest court in the land, Cornyn's appearance was widely interpreted as an effort by presidential hopeful Gov. George W. Bush to court the Religious Right.

Anthony P. Griffin, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Texas, faced a barrage of questions from the court's anti-separationist bloc, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia. Rehnquist and Scalia both implied that the Santa Fe policy may be constitutional because, as Rehnquist put it, "Nobody has to go to football games." But Griffin quickly quipped, "When you're a teenager, yes you do."

The case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was filed by two anonymous families, one Mormon and the other Roman Catholic. A decision is expected by early July.

Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the high court urging the justices to strike down the prayer policy. According to the AU brief, the policy fosters religious majoritarianism and requires students to participate in religious worship against their will.