Court won’t hear prayer vigil case
Decision leaves in place plaintiffs’ right to sue
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear arguments in a dispute between officials in a central Florida city who encouraged residents to attend a prayer vigil and two atheists who claimed the city’s involvement violated the First Amendment.
The decision to decline the case, which was made without comment from the high court, leaves in place a federal appeals court ruling that found at least one of the plaintiffs was within their rights to sue over the vigil. The lawsuit may now continue in a lower court.
Two of the court’s conservatives justices wrote brief opinions about the decision to decline the case. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch signaled support for the city’s view but said that it was too early for the Supreme Court to weigh in. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision.
What the Ocala case is about
Officials in Ocala, located between Orlando and Gainesville, encouraged residents to attend the 2014 vigil after a series of drive-by shootings left several children injured. Then-ocala Police Chief Greg Graham signed a letter, posted on the department’s website, encouraging people to attend. The vigil featured police chaplains onstage praying and singing in their uniforms, court records show.
The plaintiffs allege the city’s involvement in the vigil violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which has long been viewed as barring the government from creating an official religion or favoring one religion over others.
At issue for the Supreme Court was a more procedural question: whether the plaintiffs, who attended the rally and alleged they were “aggrieved” by what they saw, were injured enough to meet the threshold for suing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled last
year that at least one of the plaintiffs had standing to sue.
Supreme Court rethinking separation of church and state
The case arrived at the high court at a time when the justices have repeatedly sided with religious interests.
In one example, a 6-3 majority last year shot down a state prohibition on using public money to attend schools that offer religious instruction. The decision means that parents in Maine could use a state subsidy to send their children to religious schools.
The Supreme Court last year also sided with a high school football coach who lost his job after offering prayers at the 50-yard line after games despite objections from the school district that students felt compelled to take part. A 6-3
majority ruled that assistant coach Joseph Kennedy’s prayers were a private matter and did not amount to the school district’s endorsement of Christianity.
For decades, the high court’s guiding doctrine for deciding cases dealing with the intersection of government and religion was the “Lemon test,” named after a 1971 decision in which the court ruled government policies must have a secular purpose, cannot advance or inhibit religion, and cannot excessively entangle church and state.
What it means for Ocala, other religious cases
The Ocala litigation may be among the first to probe the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kennedy case. The city, represented by Jay Sekulow, argued that a “claim of personal
offense or dismay, without more,” doesn’t give people the right to sue for a violation of the First Amendment.
Gorsuch wrote he saw “no need for the court’s intervention at this juncture” but he questioned whether Americans sue for the reasons the plaintiffs raised.
Thomas wrote that he had “serious doubts” about the ability of plaintiffs to file the suit. Courts are empowered to judge the legal rights of litigants in actual controversies, he wrote in his dissent, “not hurt feelings.”
But Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Monday in response that Ocala “blatantly violated” the principle of government not promoting religion. The state, she said, must not use its power to impose religion.
Contributing: Ocala Star-banner