In short, a teacher filed suit to prevent certain acts of religious
discrimination against him because of his religion. He was not a
Christian. The school engaged in various religious activities,
including a sectarian Christian religious baccalaureate. After the
court told the school to discontinue the religious baccalaureate, they
held another one. When challenged, they said that they did not do it,
the students borrowed the auditorium and did it themselves.
The teacher moved to hold them in contempt. In their response, one of
the defendants, Archer, filed an affidavit that "Neither I nor any
person representing the DeValls Bluff School District had any
participation in the planning or conduct of the baccalaureate service.
Its entire process of planning and execution was conducted solely by
pastors and/or members of local churches, including students, on
information and belief." At that time he also said "the baccalaureate
service was held in the High School auditorium at the request of those
planning the service."
The assertion was not exactly accurate, as you can read in this
opinion. All the students actually did was ask a couple of preachers
to come speak. Asking a preacher to make a speech must be one of the
easiest tasks in western civilization.
I believe this is significant because here, as in Kitzmiller v. Dover,
the people promoting religion were willing to bend the truth in support
of their attempts to give preference to their religion.
Thandarr
Here's the opinion from the United States Court of Appeals:
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-1626/1713
___________
Steve Warnock, *
*
Appellee/Cross Appellant, *
*
v. **
Charles Archer, Individually *
and as Superintendent; Charles Eads, *
Individually and as Principal; Gene *
Baldwin, Individually and as School *
Board President; David Smith, *
Individually and as member of the * Appeals from the United States
Board of Directors of the DeValls * District Court for the
Bluff, Arkansas Public School District * Eastern District of Arkansas.
and the DeValls Bluff Public School *
District; L. C. Holloway, Individually * [PUBLISHED]
and as member of the Board of *
Directors of the DeValls Bluff, Arkansas*
Public School District and the DeValls *
Bluff Public School District; Verna *
Gaddy, Individually and as member of *
the Board of Directors of the DeValls *
Bluff, Arkansas Public School District *
and the DeValls Bluff Public School *
District; Melvin Hula, Individually and *
as member of the Board of Directors of *
the DeValls Bluff, Arkansas Public *
School District and the DeValls *
Bluff Public School District; Vera *
Doepel, Individually and as member of *
the Board of Directors of the DeValls *
Bluff, Arkansas Public School District *
1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for
the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2-
and the DeValls Bluff Public School *
District; Emma Gray, Individually and *
as member of the Board of Directors of *
the DeValls Bluff, Arkansas Public *
School District and the DeValls Bluff *
Public School District; DeValls Bluff *
Public School District, *
*
Appellants/Cross Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: January 9, 2006
Filed: April 4, 2006
___________
Before WOLLMAN, GIBSON, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
The DeValls Bluff School District, along with its employees and
directors, are
subject to an injunction that prohibits them from orchestrating or
supervising prayers
at school graduation or baccalaureate ceremonies. They appeal the order
of the district
court1 holding them in contempt of that injunction. Steve Warnock
cross-appeals,
contending that the district court's order failed to impose sufficient
sanctions on the
defendants for the contempt. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Mr. Warnock previously brought a lawsuit against the defendants,
challenging
various practices of the DeValls Bluff School District on
establishment-clause
grounds. Ruling, in part, in Mr. Warnock's favor, the district court
enjoined the
defendants from, inter alia, "orchestrating or supervising or reciting
prayers or other
-3-
religious messages at graduation and baccalaureate ceremonies."
Although the
defendants unsuccessfully appealed other aspects of the district
court's injunction, see
Warnock v. Archer, 380 F.3d 1076, 1079 (8th Cir. 2004), they did not
challenge its
restrictions on graduation and baccalaureate ceremonies in that appeal,
id. at 1079 n.1.
While that appeal was pending, Mr. Warnock attended a baccalaureate
ceremony at
the DeValls Bluff High School auditorium that included an invocation
and a
benediction by local ministers. He then filed a motion asking the
district court to find
the defendants in contempt of the injunction. The district court
granted the motion,
concluding that school district employees had planned and supervised
the
baccalaureate ceremony at which the prayers were offered.
We review a district court's civil contempt order for an abuse of
discretion,
while reviewing the factual findings underlying that decision for clear
error. Jake's,
Ltd. v. City of Coates, 356 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2004). After
considering its wellreasoned
opinion, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in
holding the defendants in contempt. The defendants contend that the
baccalaureate
service was a student-organized event, but there was ample evidence on
the record to
demonstrate that school employees were involved with almost every
aspect of the
service's preparation. The court heard evidence that the school
district paid two
school employees to act as senior class sponsors: These sponsors met
with DeValls
Bluff seniors during school hours, where they supervised and advised on
the planning
of the baccalaureate service. It was these school employees who
designed the
service's program, typed it up, and copied it using school resources.
And it was those
same school employees who handed out the programs at the baccalaureate
service.
Faced with such facts, the district court was justified in concluding
that the school
district helped to "produce a service that continued the tradition of
having local clergy
offer prayers and religious messages" and in finding the defendants in
contempt.
Mr. Warnock asks us to increase the severity of the sanctions that the
district
court imposed. As we have already noted, we will disturb the contempt
order only if
-4-
it resulted from an abuse of discretion. Although the district court
did not impose any
monetary sanctions, it warned that further violations might well entail
more severe
consequences. The district court is in a better position than we to
judge what
sanctions are necessary to achieve compliance, and we discern no abuse
of discretion
here. We therefore decline the invitation to modify its order.
Affirmed.
______________________________
.
|
