ILNews

ACLU: Full court should rehear prayer case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana wants the full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a case involving legislative prayer.

The civil liberties organization Wednesday filed a petition for rehearing en banc in Anthony Hinrichs v. Speaker of the House of Representatives, No. 1:05-cv-00813. This request comes about two weeks after a three-judge circuit panel ruled that plaintiffs didn't have standing to sue lawmakers over legislative prayer and ordered that the federal suit be dismissed.

The Hoosier ACLU had sued in May 2005 on behalf of four people who objected to the practice of opening each legislative session with a prayer. U.S. District Judge David Hamilton in the Southern District of Indiana ruled that invocations offered in the Indiana House of Representatives could not mention Jesus Christ or use Christian terms such as savior because they amount to state endorsement of a religion.

But the Oct. 30 7th Circuit ruling reversed the District Court decision, though it didn't touch on the merits of the case.

In its decision, Circuit Judges Kenneth Ripple and Michael Kanne in the majority noted that the legislative practice isn't mandated by statute and that plaintiffs weren't able to point to any specific amount of money spent on the practice and that other than costs related to broadcasting online, nothing spent was directly related to the content of the prayers provided.

But legal counsel Ken Falk disagrees, writing that the panel's decision conflicts with precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States and its own past decisions.

"Consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions," the 22-page brief says, delving into several cases it says were misinterpreted. "The panel decision has overruled the requirements for state taxpayer standing as developed by the Supreme Court ... This is beyond the prerogative of this Court and en banc review must be granted to remedy this error."

Falk notes that the plaintiff-taxpayers have brought a "good faith pocketbook action" to challenge clear Establishment Clause violations and have standing to sue.

Judge Diane Wood was the sole dissenter on the original panel and argued her colleagues overextended caselaw and denied plaintiffs a day in court. It would take a majority of the 11 active judges to rehear the case before the full court.

No clear timeline exists for the court to consider the request, but it could ask the state to submit a response brief. Both sides have said previously they expect this case to eventually be appealed to the nation's highest court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT