Divided Rutherford school board reinstates meeting prayer 'for some divine guidance'
The Rutherford County Board of Education will start meetings with prayer instead of moments of silence, the majority recently decided.
Board member Caleb Tidwell called for the 5-2 vote March 20 to allow for a short prayer and "ask for some divine guidance at the beginning," which was practiced at meetings in prior decades by elected school officials.
Board member Stan Vaught opposed Tidwell's motion, which was proposed near the end of the meeting and excluded from the agenda.
Vaught said he was concerned the district could face expensive First Amendment challenges for bringing back prayer at board meetings, "if it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
"You're asking for trouble," he told Tidwell and the others in the majority. "You're asking for the taxpayers of this county to bail us out."
TN ACLU attorney: Lawsuit coming soon for Rutherford Schools 'appetite for banning books'
Prior to the March 20 vote, Board attorney Jeff Reed estimated that school officials could spend more than $1 million in legal costs to defend a lawsuit all the way through to the nation's top court.
In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court in Engel v. Vital ruled that public school prayers provided to all students in a classroom or campus violated the establishment clauses of the First Amendment, according to a webpage from the national Free Speech Center based at Middle Tennessee State University.
Reed previously told The Daily News Journal that school board meetings are expected to follow the same public school requirements by offering no official prayers, based on a ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which has jurisdiction over parts of Tennessee, including Rutherford County.
"Given recent Supreme Court rulings, the courts could view the case different than previously," Reed said.
Courts have permitted legislative bodies such as the state legislature and Rutherford County Commission to open meetings with prayer, Reed said.
Meeting prayer in 2018: Buddhist monk served as Rutherford County Commission's guest chaplain
Tidwell's motion for prayer had support from Butch Vaughn, Katie Darby, Tammy Sharp and vice chairwoman Frances Rosales.
Chairwoman Claire Maxwell joined Vaught in opposing.
Vaughn, who seconded the motion to approve, suggested there are "lots of kids who want to pray with us."
He also asked why the school board had to give up prayer at meetings in the first place.
"I'm ready to fight," he said. "The structure of our country is based on that. I'd just like to get it back myself."
'I will do my very best': New Rutherford school board chairwoman Claire Maxwell faces challenges
As part of his argument, Vaught said he'd rather observe moments of silence so each board member, district employee, person in the sometimes 150-plus strong audience and everyone watching the video-recorded meetings can send up his or her own prayer.
"You're infringing on other people's liberty by doing this," Vaught told the majority. "I don't know if you're thinking about that or not, but we have to protect everybody's liberty: right, wrong, black, white, pink, purple, polka dot, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu."
Vaught also pointed out how the district has 52 different languages spoken by students and employees at Smyrna High School, alone. He noted that Rutherford County Schools is home to several different religions observed among its 52,000 students and 7,000 employees.
Before the board's vote, Darby convinced a majority to amend the motion to include a statement making it clear that elected school officials are "not asking anyone to pray with us" and that audience members can step out of the meeting room if they "don't want to join in prayer."
School board politics: Rutherford school board Zone 2 race gets divisive with RINO insult to GOP officials
After the meeting, Vaught told The Daily News Journal he'd received praise for his stance on the prayer issue from Nashville's Rae Levine.
"As a Jew in TN and especially, a retired MNPS (Metro Nashville Public Schools) teacher, reading Stan's words, renews my faith and hope for Tennessee," Levine said in a letter to the editor in The Tennessean. "Our Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is being trampled upon by Trump and his legion, by Governor Lee, and TN GOP legislators, by school board members all over our state, as separation of church and state has become a 'woke' thing, which is unfathomable."
Prior to the meeting and subsequent prayer vote, Vaught, who attends First Baptist Church on East Main Street in downtown Murfreesboro, offered to meet in prayer with elected school officials.
"We can pray right there, right then, before the meeting starts," he said.
'We are banished': Rutherford schools book banning upsets free speech advocates
Reach reporter Scott Broden with news tips or questions by emailing him at sbroden@dnj.com. To support his work with The Daily News Journal, sign up for a digital subscription.
This article originally appeared on Murfreesboro Daily News Journal: Tennessee school board to reinstate meeting prayers after split vote
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court delays order that would have blocked Trump from continuing to deploy National Guard in California
A federal appeals court Thursday delayed an order requiring the Trump administration to return control of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom. A panel of three judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of the lower court's order and set a hearing for June 17. Two of the judges on the panel were nominated by President Donald Trump, and one was nominated by former President Joe Biden. Earlier Thursday, a federal judge in California issued a temporary restraining order that would have blocked Trump's move to deploy California National Guard troops during protests over immigration raids in Los Angeles and returned control of the California National Guard to Gov. Gavin Newsom. Calling the judge's order "unprecedented" and an "extraordinary intrusion on the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief," lawyers for the Trump administration filed an emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before being paused by the appeals court, the lower court judge's order, which did not limit Trump's use of the Marines, was set to take effect at noon on Friday. "At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not," U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in his order granting the temporary restraining order sought by Newsom. "His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." MORE: Trump's deployment of troops to LA prompts host of legal questions -- and a challenge from California In a press conference after the earlier order, Newsom said he was "gratified" by the judge's ruling, saying he would return the National Guard "to what they were doing before Donald Trump commandeered them," Newsom said. "The National Guard will go back to border security, working on counter drug enforcement and fentanyl enforcement, which they were taken off by Donald Trump. The National Guard will go back to working on what we refer to as the rattlesnake teams, doing vegetation and forest management, which Donald Trump took them off in preparation for wildfire season. The National Guard men and women will go back to their day jobs, which include law enforcement," Newsom's speech continued. Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta had filed an emergency request on Tuesday to block what they called Trump and the Department of Defense's "unnecessary" and "unlawful militarization" after Trump issued a memorandum over the weekend deploying more than 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles amid the protests -- over objections from Newsom and other state and local officials. In his order, Breyer pointed to protesters' First Amendment rights and said, "Just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous," he wrote. Breyer wrote that the protests in Los Angeles "fall far short" of the legal requirements of a "rebellion" to justify a federal deployment. Rebellions need to be armed, violent, organized, open, and aim to overturn a government, he wrote. The protests in California meet none of those conditions, he found. "Plaintiffs and the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life, but deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions," the judge wrote in his order. "Regardless of the outcome of this case or any other, that alone threatens serious injury to the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state governments, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity," the judge wrote. Some 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines were ordered to the Los Angeles area following protests over immigration raids. California leaders claim Trump inflamed the protests by sending in the military when it was not necessary. Protests have since spread to other cities, including Boston, Chicago and Seattle. To send thousands of National Guardsmen to Los Angeles, Trump invoked Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services, which allows a federal deployment in response to a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." In his order, Trump said the troops would protect federal property and federal personnel who are performing their functions. The judge did not decide whether the military's possible involvement in immigration enforcement -- by being present with ICE agents during raids -- violates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from performing civilian law enforcement. The judge said he would hear additional arguments on that point at a hearing next week. During a court hearing earlier Thursday, Breyer said during Thursday's 70-minute hearing that the main issue before him was whether the president complied with the Title 10 statute and that the National Guard was "properly federalized." The federal government maintained that the president did comply while also arguing that the statute is not justiciable and the president has complete discretion. The judge was asked not to issue an injunction that would "countermand the president's military judgments." Meanwhile, the attorney on behalf of the state of California and Newsom said their position is that the National Guard was not lawfully federalized, and that the president deploying troops in the streets of a civilian city in response to perceived disobedience was an "expansive, dangerous conception of federal executive power." MORE: Protests live updates: Americans split over support of LA protests, poll finds Bonta additionally argued in the emergency filing that Trump failed to meet the legal requirements for such a federal deployment. "To put it bluntly, there is no invasion or rebellion in Los Angeles; there is civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country, and that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together," Bonta wrote. Breyer had earlier declined California's request to issue a temporary restraining order immediately and instead set the hearing for Thursday afternoon in San Francisco and gave the Trump administration the time they requested to file a response. In their response, Department of Justice lawyers asked the judge to deny Newsom's request for a temporary restraining order that would limit the military to protecting federal buildings, arguing such an order would amount to a "rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law." "The extraordinary relief Plaintiffs request would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives -- and would do so in the posture of a temporary restraining order, no less. That would be unprecedented. It would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous," they wrote. They also argued California should not "second-guess the President's judgment that federal reinforcements were necessary" and that a federal court should defer to the president's discretion on military matters. MORE: How the immigration protests in Los Angeles started Trump on Tuesday defended his decision to send in the National Guard and Marines, saying the situation in LA was "out of control." "All I want is safety. I just want a safe area," he told reporters. "Los Angeles was under siege until we got there. The police were unable to handle it." Trump went on to suggest that he sent in the National Guard and the Marines to send a message to other cities not to interfere with ICE operations or they will be met with equal or greater force. "If we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country," he said. "But I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here." ABC News' Jeffrey Cook and Peter Charalambous, Alyssa Pone and Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report. Appeals court delays order that would have blocked Trump from continuing to deploy National Guard in California originally appeared on


Fox News
28 minutes ago
- Fox News
Democratic Governors Forced To Defend Sanctuary Policies
A busy week in the beltway, with new developments on everything from trade deals to health policy and Supreme Court rulings to crucial immigration enforcement decisions. Tensions continued to flare this week over ICE agents' arrests in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, Blue state governors have been forced to grapple with their own state governments' sanctuary rules that appear at odds with federal guidelines. FOX News Sunday anchor Shannon Bream joins to break down the latest impactful High Court rulings and analyzes the national debate playing out concerning immigration enforcement in America. Next summer, the United States, Canada, and Mexico will host the 2026 World Cup, and the excitement begins now! While matches will be held across North America, the U.S. men's national team will face significant pressure. FOX Sports Analyst and former U.S. men's national team member Alexi Lalas joins to preview next summer's events and share his thoughts on the state of soccer in the United States. Plus, commentary from presidential historian and author of 'The Power and the Money,' Tevi Troy. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit


Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana University changes rule about overnight protests on campus
The Indiana University board of trustees voted to change a policy intended to tighten restrictions on campus protests after a federal judge found it was likely to violate the First Amendment. Nearly a year ago, IU's board passed its "expressive activity" policy to ban overnight camping and the use of unapproved structures in response to a pro-Palestinian solidarity encampment that stood on campus for months during the spring 2024 semester. Violators faced a range of possible disciplinary actions, including suspension, expulsion, loss of university employment and a responsibility to pay for damages. However, the policy was paused after a judge ruled two weeks ago that it likely violates the campus community's First Amendment rights. Time, place and manner restrictions on free expression are legal as long as they are narrowly tailored; the judge's order said IU's policy was not. During its June 12 meeting, the board unanimously agreed to end the prohibition on overnight protesting and other expressive activities. It also added language saying the policy should be "interpreted in favor of free speech rights." While the overnight restriction is removed, protests stretching after hours, like the pro-Palestinian encampment, may still prove difficult. Camping is not permitted, and protesters must still obtain prior approval for structures. The trustees voted to amend the policy at their June 12 meeting without explicitly detailing the changes before the vote. The policy was updated online about 15 minutes after the vote. General Counsel Anthony Prather said he and other administrators were evaluating changes to the policy prior to the court's decision. The new version is a combination of stakeholder feedback and takeaways from the preliminary injunction, he said. Newly sworn-in trustee James Bopp Jr., a longtime conservative First Amendment lawyer, said he agreed that the previous policy overstepped constitutional rights. The new version, he said, adequately weighs guardrails and rights to on-campus speech. "This issue, not only in my general practice but for the purposes of the university, is of critical importance that we get this right," Bopp said. "I really want to compliment the general counsel, in my opinion, as having done that now." Trustees were also set to discuss resident undergraduate tuition, the budget and President Pamela Whitten's compensation during the June 12 meeting. Last year, trustees crafted an update to IU's "expressive activities" policy after a Dunn Meadow encampment resulted in several clashes with police and dozens of arrests. The university fenced off the area last school year to make pricey repairs it said the encampment caused. Three of the nine trustees voted against it during its initial passage last summer. Indiana Gov. Mike Braun has since removed three of the board's members, including two of the dissenting trustees, under his new appointment powers, codified last legislative session. The campus community widely decried the policy as unconstitutional, and protesters staged midnight candlelight vigils throughout the fall 2024 semester to test and challenge IU's enforcement of the policy. The Indiana Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the policy on First Amendment grounds last August, which resulted in the policy's temporary halt this May. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.