ILNews

Indiana joins fight for National Day of Prayer

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana has joined the fight to reverse the holding by U.S. District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin that the federal law providing for a National Day of Prayer violates the Establishment Clause.

The amicus brief before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by the Texas Attorney General and others, argues the ruling calls into question the traditional state practice of issuing proclamations acknowledging their residents may choose to pray together during difficult times, and state proclamations issued in conjunction with the National Day of Prayer.

The brief also says that providing for a day of prayer is constitutional because the law doesn’t require the engagement in any religious activity of any kind by any person or governmental body. It also calls into question whether the ruling by the Wisconsin District Court finds Memorial Day to be unconstitutional as well because it was originally enacted as a day for people to pray for peace. The National Day of Prayer statute was enacted in 1952.

Indiana is one of 29 states that signed the Texas amicus brief. Other nearby state signers include Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio.

The suit was filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation - a Madison, Wisc.-based group working for separation of church and state - against President Barack Obama and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, challenging the authority of the president to designate the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer. Judge Barbara B. Crabb ruled in April that 36 U.S.C. Section 119 is unconstitutional.

“I understand that many may disagree with that conclusion and some may even view it as a criticism of prayer or those who pray. That is unfortunate,” she wrote in the opinion. “A determination that the government may not endorse a religious message is not a determination that the message itself is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination. Rather, it is part of the effort to ‘carry out the Founders' plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.” McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 882 (O'Connor, J., concurring).’”

Oral arguments in the appeal have not been set, according to the court docket.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT