{
  "id": "98-523",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "98-523",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 103744,
      "date": "2001-06-25",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:23:02.496941",
      "title": "The Alabama School Prayer Case: Chandler v. Siegelman",
      "summary": "In  Chandler v. James  in 1997 a federal district court in Alabama held a statute\nauthorizing \"non-sectarian, non-proselytizing, student-initiated voluntary prayer\" at all public school\nevents to violate\nthe establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment. To enforce that ruling, Judge DeMent\nissued an injunction barring the enforcement of the statute and enjoining school officials in DeKalb\nCounty, Alabama, from fostering and engaging in a variety of evangelical activities in the schools. \nThat decision and injunction became the subject of intense political controversy in Alabama and\nelsewhere. Governor James pursued appeals to both the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit\ncontending that the decision and the injunction ought to be vacated on the grounds the establishment\nclause has no applicability to the states. Both courts denied the Governor's petition. But in a\nseparate appeal by the state Attorney General, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the injunction's\nprohibition barring school officials from permitting any student-initiated vocal prayer or devotional\nspeech at school sponsored events violated the students' free speech and free exercise of religion\nrights. The appellate court upheld, however, the district court's appointment of a monitor to oversee\nimplementation of the injunction. Nonetheless, the court vacated the district court's injunction and\nremanded it for rewriting in light of the appellate decision. The Supreme Court subsequently vacated\nthis decision for reconsideration in light of its ruling in  Santa Fe Independent School District\nv. Doe. \n But in  Chandler v. Siegelman  the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed its previous\ndecision; and on June 18,\n2001, the Supreme Court refused to review that reaffirmation. This report will no longer be updated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/98-523",
          "sha1": "19381300846a7effc97bd132920a86d6eea85300",
          "filename": "files/20010625_98-523_19381300846a7effc97bd132920a86d6eea85300.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010625_98-523_19381300846a7effc97bd132920a86d6eea85300.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}