Althought every case presented in the options was about an aspect of religion in schools the one which ruled that school sponsored prayer by clergy at a graduation was unscontitutional is <em>"Lee v. Weisman"</em> .
It was the first major school prayer case decided by the Rehnquist court on the year 1992.
<h3>
<u>
Context</u></h3>
Robert E. Lee was the principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence, Rhode Island. He invited a rabbi to present a prayer at the 1989 graduation ceremony, Deborah Weisman was a student from that class and her parents requested a temporary injunction to ban the rabbi´s presentation. At first instance the Rhode Island court denied the Weisman´s motion, nevertheless the Wesiman family still attended to the graduation and the rabbi gave his speech.
The Weisman family continued their litigation after the graduation and won in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The argument of the family was an interpretation of the <em>"Establishment clause"</em> that sustained the free excercise of religion throughout the country and prohibit the congress to sanction a law about establishing a determinated religion. The interpretation which the family and the Supreme Court held was a broad interpretation.
After having lost in the First Circuit Court of Appeals the school district appealed to the Supreme Court under the argument that the prayer was nonsectarian and doubly voluntary, Deborah was free not to stand for the prayer and the participation in the ceremony wasn´t obligatory neither.
<h3> <u>
Decision</u> </h3>
On june 24, 1992 the decision was announced and, as I wrote in the last paragraph, it was a win for the Weisman family as the Court accept the arguements presented by them and reject the ones presented by the school district making special emphasis on the one which said that the attend of Deborah to the graduation was voluntary:
<em>"To say a teenage student has a real choice not to attend her high school graduation is formalistic in the extreme. True, Deborah could elect not to attend commencement without renouncing her diploma; but we shall not allow the case to turn on this point. Everyone knows that, in our society and in our culture, high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions. A school rule which excuses attendance is beside the point. Attendance may not be required by official decree, yet it is apparent that a student is not free to absent herself from the graduation exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary," for absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years" </em>Anthony Kennedy.
I hope that the answer is correct and helps you. Regards
