WASHINGTON, D.C. – For the second time in three
years the longstanding tradition of local legislative prayer could be sent back
to the U.S. Supreme Court. A Pagan activist sued to stop county commissioners
in Jackson County, Michigan from opening their meetings with voluntary prayer
arguing it establishes religion, even though the Supreme Court already
unanimously protected legislative prayer in 2014. Becket, along with leading
religious liberty scholar Professor Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School,
filed a friend-of-the-court brief today explaining that local legislative prayer
does not violate the Constitution.
A Pagan activist, Peter Bormuth has sued more
than six times in the past few years against various governmental bodies and
nonprofits, including suing a community college because it did not give him
special treatment as a “druidic bard” at poetry readings, and suing a local
nonprofit nature center after he sent an email threatening staff because he
thought they shouldn't use a golf cart. His latest lawsuit, Bormuth v. Jackson
County, tries to force individual county commissioners to stop praying.
“Just three years ago the Supreme Court
unanimously supported legislative prayer,” said Daniel Blomberg, counsel at
Becket, and lead attorney in this case. “There’s nothing unconstitutional about
opening a meeting in prayer. And some people would say that government needs
all the help it can get.”
The case, which will be heard at the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, could come into conflict with Lund v.
Rowan County, another legislative prayer case currently at the Fourth Circuit.
If the two courts rule differently, another Supreme Court case is very likely,
even though the Court unanimously supported legislative prayer in Town of
Greece v. Galloway just three years ago.
In this case, Bormuth, who represents himself,
lost in federal district court, but won in a 2-1 decision at the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals. The full Sixth Circuit then spontaneously scheduled the case
for argument before the entire 14-judge court.
“Sometimes the squeaky wheel shouldn’t get the
grease,” added Blomberg. “Disagreements about religion cannot be used as an
excuse to banish religious activity entirely from public life. If courts would
simply reconnect the First Amendment with its historical roots, there wouldn’t
be so many divisive church-state lawsuits.”
The full 14-judge Sixth Circuit will hear the
case on June 14 in Cincinnati.
Additional Information:
|
No comments:
Post a Comment