On the PLAINTIFF's side, how would you argue that the plaintiff is accordance with the law?

Question

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000)
Issue: School Prayer
Bottom Line:Public schools Cannot Sponsor Religious Activity

Background
A Texas school district allowed a student "chaplain," who had been elected by fellow students, to lead a prayer over the public address system before home football games. Several students and their parents anonymously sued the school district, claiming a violation of what's known as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the school district's policy regarding prayer was unconstitutional. Although led by students, the prayers were still a school-sponsored activity, the Court said, and they were coercive because they placed students in the position of having to participate in a religious ceremony.

"The Constitution demands that schools not force on

Answer 1

The plaintiffs were the students and the parents of the students who brought the suit.

Which makes the caption (School v. Parents) wrong, unless it is following the older tradition of swapping the order of the parties depending on who makes the appeals. But that would still make the parents the plaintiff and respondent, and the school the defendant and appellant.

I don't see any counter-claim being brought -- so there isn't really any legal question of whether the plaintiffs were in accordance with the law -- what law could they possibly have violated, just for bringing the complaint?

If you were trying to argue that the defendant (the school) was in conformance with the law, you would need to show that the school was not promoting any religion -- simply allowing a student-elected individual to use the PA system for an activity that the students had approved -- but that's not a winning argument (as you can see from the holding).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT -- MenifeeManiac makes an excellent argument, based on opinions written by Scalia that held that it is acceptable for the govt to promote religion over lack of religion, as long as it does so without promoting any single religion (or any group of religions) over some other religion.

Answer 2

Actually, it is the appellant's side, or the defendant, whose side you want argued.

The School district should argue that the prayer is nondenominal in nature; that it is a generic prayer that crosses over all religions; thus, it does not serve (or endorses) one religion.