that an invocation and a benediction should be given at graduation. Second, the state decided that a rabbi should perform the blessing, thus favoring a particular religion and creating the potential for divisiveness. The school district argued it had addressed the latter issue by making the prayer ônonsectarian.ö Kennedy dismissed that claim, declaring unconstitutional any government undertaking to produce a prayer at an event where students ôfor all practical purposes are obliged to attend.ö
Justice Souter took a different approach in his concurring opinion. Souter saw a more complex case, and an opportunity. He used his concurring opinion in Lee to not only make a persuasive argument for the outcome in this case, but also to offer a compelling reply to two of the criticisms that had been leveled at the CourtÆs establishment clause decisions. Souter addressed whether the state can favor religion over non-religion, and whether state coercion of religious conformity is permitted.
The school district claimed that the Establishment Clause did not prohibit the state from sponsoring affirmations of religious belief so long as the state does not coerce support for the religion or participation in the event. Souter pointed out that the Court had often invalid
...