## Facts

- The Purdy R-II School District adopted Rule 502.29: “School dances are not authorized, and school premises shall not be used for purposes of conducting a dance.”
- Purdy was a small rural Missouri community where religion played a significant role in civic life; some local denominations taught that social dancing was sinful.
- Students periodically sought permission for school dances and urged the school board to change the rule; students nonetheless held dances off school property.
- In early 1988, students again requested that the board reconsider the no-dance rule; local ministers and a ministerial group organized opposition, urged congregants to attend meetings, and communicated support for keeping the rule.
- At a crowded board meeting, opponents of changing the rule presented their position and demonstrated community support; the board retained the no-dance rule.
- Students, parents, and taxpayers sued the school district, superintendent, and board members, alleging the policy violated the Establishment Clause (and related state constitutional provisions).
- After a bench trial, the district court held Rule 502.29 unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, enjoined its enforcement, and found the rule lacked a secular purpose and had the primary effect of endorsing anti-dancing religious beliefs.
- The school district appealed; the Eighth Circuit reversed and upheld Rule 502.29. Rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied over a dissent.

## Issues

1. Whether a school board’s categorical ban on school dances violates the Establishment Clause when religious groups and religiously motivated citizens advocate for retaining the ban.
2. Whether Rule 502.29 lacked a secular purpose or had the primary effect of advancing religion under Establishment Clause doctrine, including the *Lemon* framework.
3. Whether community religious influence and lobbying created excessive church–state entanglement by shaping the school district’s extracurricular policy.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and upheld Rule 502.29 against the Establishment Clause challenge.
- The court accepted that religious opposition to dancing was substantial in the community, but held that coincidence between a public policy and religious tenets is not enough to establish a constitutional violation.
- The court treated the rule as a permissible regulation of school-sponsored activities, noting students remained free to dance off campus and did so.
- The court found no excessive entanglement: religious advocacy and political pressure were viewed as ordinary participation in local decisionmaking rather than governmental interdependence with churches.
- The district court’s injunction against enforcing the no-dance rule was set aside as to the federal Establishment Clause basis.

## Legal Principles

- A government policy does not violate the Establishment Clause solely because it aligns with the beliefs of some religious groups; the analysis requires evidence that the government itself adopted a religious purpose or produced a primary effect of advancing religion.
- Under *Lemon v. Kurtzman*, Establishment Clause review focuses on secular purpose, primary effect, and excessive entanglement; religiously motivated advocacy in the political process does not, by itself, prove an impermissible governmental purpose.
- Restrictions on school-sponsored extracurricular activities may be upheld where they function as neutral administrative choices, do not impose religious exercise or instruction, and do not communicate an official religious judgment.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit concluded that Purdy’s prohibition on school dances was a secular regulation of school-sponsored activities and did not become an Establishment Clause violation merely because local religious groups strongly supported retaining the policy.


Clayton v. Place, 884 F.2d 376 (8th Cir. 1989)