From The Bench, Interior Decorators

The case is about a non-denominational prayer given by a rabbi at a public high school graduation. The Court holds that the prayer is unconstitutional because some students may be coerced to stand and pray or give the impression that they are praying. The majority of the Court talks about how important high school graduations are and how coercion can be psychological, not just physical. Scalia thinks their argument is hogwash. A zinger from the dissent:

The Court presumably would separate graduation invocations and benedictions from other instances of public “preservation and transmission of religious beliefs” on the ground that they involve “psychological coercion.” I find it a sufficient embarrassment that our Establishment Clause jurisprudence regarding holiday displays, has come to “requir[e] scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary” (quoting Easterbrook). But interior decorating is a rock-hard science compared to psychology practiced by amateurs. A few citations of “[r]esearch in psychology” that have no particular bearing upon the precise issue here, cannot disguise the fact that the Court has gone beyond the realm where judges know what they are doing. The Court's argument that state officials have “coerced” students to take part in the invocation and benediction at graduation ceremonies is, not to put too fine a point on it, incoherent.

from the Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman