On February 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education released updated Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer and Religious Expression in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, replacing prior 2023 guidance.
The guidance explains how federal law and Supreme Court precedent apply to prayer and religious activity in public schools, and it carries significant consequences because federal education funding depends on compliance. At the same time, Arizona lawmakers are considering multiple bills involving school board prayer, released-time religious instruction, and other religion-related policies that raise constitutional questions.
The guidance is issued under Section 8524 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which requires school districts to certify annually that they do not maintain policies that prevent participation in constitutionally protected prayer. State education agencies must report districts that fail to certify or that face complaints, and federal enforcement can include withholding funds until compliance is achieved. This means disputes about religion in schools are not just theoretical constitutional issues as they can directly affect school funding.
The central legal principle emphasized in the guidance is neutrality, not promotion and not suppression of religion. Under current First Amendment precedent, students, teachers, and members of the school community have the right to engage in religious expression, including prayer, so long as it is voluntary, not coerced, and not part of official school activity. Public schools therefore may neither suppress religious expression nor compel participation in it.
The guidance relies on major Supreme Court decisions recognizing strong protections for religious exercise, although not specifically about school prayer:
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) - Schools cannot make students engage in speech or conduct that goes against their religious beliefs.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)- The government, including public schools, sometimes must accommodate religious practices, even when doing so conflicts with regular policy.
Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) - A policy can burden religion when families must choose between following their faith and participating fully in public education
Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022) - School employees may engage in private religious expression outside official duties.
Key points from these cases include that:
Parents and students have constitutional rights to participate in education (or not) consistent with their religious beliefs.
Schools must justify burdens on religion under strict scrutiny, showing there is a compelling government interest and that there is no other way to achieve the goal..
Rights belong to both parents and children.
Protection extends to indirect burdens, including school or social pressure.
Schools may never force students to affirm beliefs contrary to their faith.
The Supreme Court of Arizona has further held that the state may not use public education to make individuals express beliefs that conflict with their religious convictions. State v. Davis (1942).
Additionally, the Arizona State Constitution specifically states that public education cannot be used to promote religious doctrine or require religious conformity. A.R.S. Const. Art. XI, § 7.
These principles imply that schools generally must accommodate religious practices, such as prayer during the school day, unless a compelling interest justifies restriction.
The guidance clarifies several common scenarios about what schools must generally allow, with protections extending to school sponsored activities and off campus events, which include:
Students praying privately or voluntarily during the school day.
Religious student clubs being on equal terms with secular clubs.
Religious viewpoints in assignments not affecting grading.
Personal religious expression by teachers and staff that is not part of official duties.
Allowing religious clothing or symbols.
Equally as important, the guidance clarifies what schools may not do, even when participation is technically voluntary:
Organize or sponsor prayer.
Require participation in religious activity.
Deliver prayers through school officials or school-controlled events.
Pressure students to conform to religious beliefs.
This guidance is in direct conflict with Arizona lawmakers, who are currently considering bills involving religion in public schools, including:
School board prayer: HB2110- Legislation permitting or encouraging prayer at school board meetings raises concerns because school board settings are closely connected to students and educational authority. Student presence and potential coercion risks make the constitutional analysis different from legislative prayer in other contexts.
Released Time Religious Instruction: HB2266, SB1741- Such programs can be constitutional only when strict conditions are met: instruction occurs off campus, no public funding is used, participation is clearly voluntary, and schools do not promote or organize the program. When schools coordinate schedules, provide incentives, or integrate programs into operations, constitutional concerns arise. The proposed legislation raises additional concerns because it would change Arizona’s current statutory language from allowing school boards to decide whether to offer a released-time program (“may”) to requiring that every school board implement one (“shall”), removing local discretion and potentially compelling districts to facilitate religious instruction and programming. Providing school credit for participation in religious classes further risks violating constitutional restrictions by placing the school in the position of promoting or endorsing religious activity rather than merely accommodating private participation.
Intelligent design instruction: SB1025- Proposed legislation affecting curriculum or instructional freedom could raise concerns if it permits schools to present religious beliefs, such as creationism or intelligent design, as scientific alternatives. While religion may be discussed academically and students may express religious viewpoints, schools themselves cannot promote religious explanations as fact without violating the Establishment Clause.
If you are not signed up for RTS, go here to Request to Speak
Legislation violating the DOE guidelines creates several risks, including legal liability, risking federal funding due to noncompliance with the guidance, student and teacher rights concerns, and administrative and classroom burden on already overworked teachers and staff.
Debates about religion in public schools often reflect different views about the government’s role, which fall along a spectrum from exclusion to active support. Some advocates describe keeping religion out of school operations as “hostility,” but the Constitution does not require hostility, but instead it requires neutrality, meaning schools may neither suppress private religious expression nor promote religion. A related concept is accommodation, where schools adjust policies to allow religious participation without endorsing it, such as permitting voluntary prayer or released-time programs under strict limits.
The greatest constitutional concern arises when policies move beyond accommodation toward government support or promotion, such as mandating religious programs, awarding academic credit for religious instruction, or integrating religious activities into school operations. The Constitution protects private religious freedom and sometimes requires accommodation, but it does not permit public schools to become vehicles for advancing religion, which is a distinction that is central to evaluating current legislative proposals.
So, what can Arizonans do? Engage. Community engagement is essential. Members of the community can monitor proposed legislation, request to speak at hearings, report potential violations to state education agencies and unions, contact elected representatives hearing the proposals, and educate other community members about proposed legislation and why voicing their opinion matters. Advocacy does not mean opposing religion. It means ensuring public schools remain inclusive for all and is constitutional.
The updated federal guidance reinforces a consistent constitutional principle: public schools must respect religious freedom without endorsing and becoming religious actions themselves. As Arizona debates new legislation involving prayer and religion in schools, policymakers and communities should carefully consider both constitutional limits and the real-world impact on students, families, and school districts.
Chloe Love
Secular AZ Legal Intern
