Scalia-Rehnquist-White-Thomas Dissent:

a.     The dissenters principally argued that there was no official compulsion here—P was not required to attend the graduation ceremony at all (thus distinguishing the case from the in-classroom prayer cases), and certainly was not required to join in the prayers in any way, merely to accommodate others who wished to pray.

b.    Also, the dissenters contended, invocations and benedictions at
public ceremonies, such as the prayers here, were part of an old tradition dating back to Jefferson’s inauguration; “The long-standing American tradition of prayer at official ceremonies displays with unmistakable clarity that the Establishment Clause does not forbid the government to accommodate it.”  So why can’t there be a two minute long non-sectarian benediction at the school graduation?  Lighten up!

1.  Dave says the majority never really addresses this.  But we can infer that Kennedy obviously thinks that his “reasonable accommodation,” discussed in Alleghany within the context of the pledge and money, does not apply in Lee because the coercion exceeds any accomodation.

c.    The majority has effectively replaced the Lemon test with a theory of psycho-coercion.  Now, the Court pretends to be not only experts in interior decoration (which they established in Alleghany) but also experts in psycho-coercion.