Justices Mum Over Moment of Silence

Public schools can be required to observe a moment of silence at the beginning of the day under a ruling that the Supreme Court let stand Monday.

Without comment, the justices refused to hear a claim from the American Civil Liberties Union that the Virginia law violates the 1st Amendment by encouraging prayer in public schools.

Monday’s court action is consistent with the fine line the justices have drawn between the Constitution’s ban on state-imposed religion and its protection of freedom of worship.

In the past, the court has said that teachers in public schools may not conduct prayers or require children to pray, but they may allow students to pray on their own.

Virginia’s law is similar to those in four other states. It says schools must pause for a minute of silence so students may meditate, pray or sit quietly.

“The act does not require students to do anything or say anything or hear anything,” Virginia Atty. Gen. Randolph Beales said. “It does not require them to make any gesture or acknowledgment. It only requires them to stay in their seats [and] to remain silent. They may read or look out the window.”

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond agreed, ruling that the state has not “established religion” by requiring a moment of silence in school.

The only uncertainty in the case arose because of a 1985 ruling in an Alabama case that went the other way. Then, the court’s majority struck down a moment of silence law because Alabama lawmakers said they wanted to return prayer to the public schools. These statements put the government’s stamp of approval on prayer, and therefore made the state law unconstitutional, the court said at the time.

Virginia lawmakers avoided that problem by stressing that students were free to do as they chose during the moment of silence. On Monday, the court issued a one-line order saying it would not hear the appeal in Brown vs. Gilmore, 01-384.

Meanwhile, the court dealt a setback to cities and states that seek to regulate violent video games that are geared to minors.

Last year, the Indianapolis City Council adopted an ordinance that prohibited people under age 18 from playing violent video games without a parent’s consent. Arcade owners could be fined $200 a day for violations.

Arcade owners sued, contending that the ordinance violated their free-speech rights as well as those of the minors involved.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago agreed and blocked the measure.

Those judges said violence, unlike obscenity, generally is protected under the freedom of speech doctrine. Moreover, the violence in video games appears to be “not very violent compared to what is available to children on television and movie theaters today,” Judge Richard Posner wrote.

Lawyers for Indianapolis appealed the issue to the Supreme Court, but the justices rejected the case. (Kendrick vs. American Amusement Machine Assn., 01-329.)

The justices agreed to hear a dispute that began at an oil refinery in El Segundo to decide an important issue involving disabled workers.

The Americans with Disabilities Act says employers may not refuse to hire a qualified worker with a disability, except when hiring such a worker may pose a direct threat to health or safety. For example, a bus company may refuse to hire a blind person as a driver because there is an obvious threat to safety.

But lower courts are divided about how to decide the issue in less obvious situations.

Chevron Corp. refused to hire Mario Echazabal for a refinery job because he has hepatitis. The exposure to chemicals could damage his liver further or kill him, the company said.

Echazabal sued, arguing that he should not be disqualified entirely from working there because of his condition. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Echazabal, saying that the employee, not the company, has the right to decide in the first instance whether there is a threat to his health.

But the justices agreed to hear the company’s appeal. (Chevron vs. Echazabal, 00-1406.)