ILNews

Court: Church program at school should end

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A church-owned religious education program held on school grounds in Huntington County should be terminated because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, a federal magistrate has ruled.

In a 31-page order issued Tuesday, U.S. District Magistrate Roger Cosbey in the Northern District of Indiana's Fort Wayne division recommended granting a preliminary injunction in H.S. v. Huntington County Community School Corp., 1:08-CV-271.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the suit in November on behalf of a third-grader's mom, who challenged the district's voluntary religious release-time education program known as "By the Book." Run by Associated Churches of Huntington County, the program uses modular trailers that are parked on elementary school property but plugged into city utilities. The suit alleged that program violated the U.S. Constitution by allowing religious instruction on school property, even if students weren't required to participate. Court records note that about 97 percent of third- and fourth-graders take part with parental consent.

Magistrate Cosbey held a hearing in mid-January to consider whether the program should be temporarily shut down in its current incarnation. School officials moved to dismiss the suit, but Magistrate Cosbey has denied that request and found the plaintiff would likely succeed on the merits in the case.

In his ruling, the magistrate wrote the question in this case boils down to whether religious instruction to elementary students on public school property during the school day, in a church-owned mobile classroom, violates the Establishment Clause.

Along with a string of caselaw, Magistrate Cosbey cited the "overarching principle" articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in People of State of Ill. ex rel. McCollum v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Sch. Dist. No. 71, Champaign County, Ill., 333 U.S. 203 (1948), which stated "the use of tax-supported property for religious instruction" and the "utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith" makes the program unconstitutional.

Magistrate Cosbey wrote that the school district faces minimal harm if the preliminary injunction is granted, while the plaintiff faced irreparable harm with continued violation of her First Amendment rights. Any inconvenience caused to Associated Churches of Huntington County by the preliminary injunction does not outweigh any harm caused by the constitutional violation, he wrote.

The school system has 10 days to file written objections to the magistrate's recommendation, and if that happens the plaintiff would then have an additional 10 days to respond to that. Senior Judge James Moody in the Hammond division will make the final ruling on the case.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT