Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/67908491-Table-of-contents-table-of-authorities-ii-interest-of-amicus-curiae-1-summary-of-the-argument-2-argument-3-i-contrary-to-the-fourth.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:46:55+00:00

Document:
Download "TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 2 ARGUMENT... 3 I. Contrary to the Fourth"
5 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is an organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law. 1 ACLJ attorneys often appear before this Court and other federal courts as counsel either for a party, e.g., Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009); Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000); Lamb s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993), or as amicus curiae in numerous cases involving constitutional issues, including legislative prayer. E.g., Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct (2014); Freedom From Religion Found. v. Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist., No (9th Cir. 2017); Bormuth v. Cty. of Jackson, 870 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The ACLJ is dedicated, inter alia, to defending religious liberty and freedom of speech, and this brief is supported by members of the ACLJ s Committee to Defend Legislative Prayer. The ACLJ files this brief in support of the petition for writ of certiorari. 1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part. No person or entity aside from amicus curiae, its members, and its counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. Amicus curiae has no parent corporation and does not issue stock. Counsel of record for the parties received timely notice of the intent to file this brief and counsel for Petitioner has filed notice with this Court consenting to the filing of amicus curiae briefs. Counsel for Respondent has provided amicus curiae written consent to the filing of this brief.
6 2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Amicus curiae urges this Court to grant a writ of certiorari in this case. There is a split among the circuit courts of appeal regarding the constitutionality of sectarian, legislator-led invocations given before meetings of local governmental bodies in light of this Court s ruling in Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct (2014). In the en banc decision below, the Fourth Circuit wrongly held that the legislator-led prayer practice in Rowan County, North Carolina, violated the United States Constitution. In stark contrast, the Sixth Circuit, also en banc, recently held that a similar legislator-led prayer practice was constitutional, expressly disagreeing with the Fourth Circuit s decision. Bormuth, 870 F.3d at 510. This Court should resolve the conflict on this important matter of national, historical, and religious significance. Amicus curiae also urges this Court to provide additional guidance as to the coercion standard for deliberative-body prayer practices and to consider the far-reaching ramifications within the federal judiciary if the Court delays the resolution of this matter.
9 5 within our nation s historically accepted traditions and does not violate the Constitution. Bormuth, 870 F.3d at 509. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the Fourth Circuit s en banc decision as having no credibility, stating that the Fourth Circuit ignored numerous examples of historical legislator-led prayer practices held across the nation. Id. at ; contra Pet. App. at Because of the clear circuit split on this matter, the conflict with this Court s precedent, and the evident confusion by the circuits as to the full effect of the Court s decision in Town of Greece, amicus curiae urges this Court to grant the Petition to resolve these conflicts. II. This Court Should Provide Additional Guidance as to the Coercion Standard for Deliberative Body Prayer Practices. This Court has ruled that a deliberative public body may open its proceedings with a sectarian prayer so long as there is not an ongoing practice of denigration of minority beliefs or non-belief, or government coercion to participate. Town of Greece, 134 S. Ct. at , 1818, This Court recognized that ceremonial prayers may reflect the values [board members] hold as private citizens, and that an invitation for participation from the audience might simply be inclusive, not coercive. Id. at Fundamentally, the Constitution does not protect individuals from hearing speech even religious speech with which they disagree, but from being compelled to participate in a religious exercise or to conform one s speech to another s religion. Id. at 1827.
11 7 Circuit expressed that it is not the responsibility of the judiciary to examine the contents of invocations so long as the prayers offered are not offensive to the Court s holdings in Marsh or Town of Greece. Bormuth, 870 F.3d at ( Town of Greece instructs that government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own God or gods as conscience dictates, and that it is not the role of the judiciary to act as [a] supervisor and censor of religious speech. We heed this advice.... ) (citations omitted). Clarification by this Court, at this time, is necessary. Cases examining prayers before deliberative bodies continue to rise through the federal courts with wide-ranging outcomes. 2 The confusion among the lower courts is apparent and has been plainly established by two directly conflicting en banc decisions. Without additional guidance from this Court, similar cases will continue to have incongruous outcomes throughout the country. This Court should take this opportunity to provide clarity in this area and resolve the question presented by the Petition. 2 See, e.g., Hudson v. Pittsylvania Cty., 107 F. Supp. 3d 524 (W.D. Va. 2015); Hake v. Carroll Cty., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D. Md. 2014); Coleman v. Hamilton Cty., 104 F. Supp. 3d 877 (E.D. Tenn. 2015).
Case: 14-1341 Document: 27 Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 1 APRIL DEBOER, et al., v. No. 14-1341 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Plaintiffs-Appellees, RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
CASE NO. 1D David W. Moyé, Tallahassee, for Respondent Zoltan Barati.
No. 09-671 IN THE ~upr~m~ ~urt ~f tl1~ ~nit~b ~tat~ KATHRYN NURRE, Petitioner, DR. CAROL WHITEHEAD, in her individual and official capacity as the Superintendent of Everett School District No. 2, Respondent.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.