Harris

Opinion by Judge WIGGINS; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge WRIGHT.

OVERVIEW

In this case, students and a parent of students challenge the constitutionality of the inclusion of prayer in the Grangeville High School graduation ceremony held yearly in Grangeville, Idaho. The plaintiffs claim that the prayers violate Article IX, sections 5 and 6, 1 and Article I, section 4, 2 of the Idaho Constitution (the “Idaho Religion Clauses”), and the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs originally sued in state court. Defendants removed the ease to federal district court. The district court allowed several students and parents to intervene on the side of the school district. The intervenors claim that they have a right under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution to have a prayer at the graduation ceremony. Both the plaintiffs and intervenors moved for summary judgment. The district court declined to rule on the state law issues, held that the prayers did not violate the Establishment Clause, and entered judgment for *449 the defendants. Harris v. Joint Sch. Dist No. 24l, 821 F.Supp. 638 , 639 n. 2, 639-44…

concurring in Part I and dissenting from Parts II and III.

This is not a prayer case involving classrooms or school assemblies. Nor does it concern the selection by a high school principal of a clergyman to provide a graduation prayer. Rather, the issue is whether a school district in a rural Idaho community may delegate to graduating students the planning and execution of their commencement, including the decision to offer an invocation and a benediction.

Because I believe that the limited role of School District No. 241 does not convey a message of state endorsement of religion, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion finding an Establishment Clause violation. Without such a violation, there is also no need for the majority to address the free speech and free exercise issues. I do agree that the district court properly declined to decide the state law claims.

In disposing of the merits, this court should follow the lead of the Fifth Circuit in Jones v. Clear Creek Independent Sch. Dist, 977 F.2d 963 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 2950 , 124 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993), and the test spelled out by the Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman, — U.S.…