Source: https://casetext.com/case/freedom-from-religion-foundation-v-obama
Timestamp: 2019-02-21 06:06:26
Document Index: 356960851

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 119', '§ 119', '§ 119', '§ 119', 'art, 235', 'art, 235']

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Obama, 641 F.3d 803 | Casetext
641 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2011)
Freedom From Religion Foundationv.Obama
FREEDOM FROM REL. FOUNDATION v. TEX. GOV. RICK PERRY
…The Supreme Court has repeatedly, and emphatically, cautioned courts not to proceed in a lawsuit until the…
U.S. Awami League, Inc. v. City of Chi.
…As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff may not claim injury to another (i.e., embarrassment to the United States)…
questioning whether the majority opinion&apos;s interpretation of Supreme Court precedent strays too far from rule adopted by every other circuit to have considered the matter, including the Eleventh
stating that “tanding has three components: injury, causation, and redressability”
Summary of this case from Life Ctr., Inc. v. City of Elgin
explaining that a party must suffer an injury to his own rights to have standing
Summary of this case from Medical Assurance Company, Inc. v. Weinberger (N.D.Ind. 5-26-2011)
Richard L. Bolton (argued), Attorney, Boardman, Suhr, Curry Field, Madison, WI, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Kenneth Alan Klukowski, Attorney, Family Research Council, Washington, DC, Deborah Jane Dewart, Attorney, Deborah J. Dewart, Attorney at Law, Swansboro, NC, Jay A. Sekulow, Attorney, American Center for Law and Justice, Washington DC, Joel L. Oster, Attorney, Alliance Defense Fund, Leawood, KS, Steven W. Fitschen, Attorney, National Legal Foundation, Virginia Beach, VA, Adam W. Aston, Attorney, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Austin, TX, John A. Eidsmoe, Attorney, Foundation for Moral Law, Inc., Montgomery, AL, Erica A. Tirschwell, Attorney, Kramer, Levin, Naftalis Frankel, LLP, New York, NY, Derek C. Araujo, Attorney, Center for Inquiry, Inc., Amherst, NY, Carl J. Summers, Attorney, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae.
Plaintiffs in this suit (an organization and six of its members) contend that § 119 violates the establishment clause of the first amendment. The district judge dismissed one defendant as a private actor outside the Constitution's reach; plaintiffs have not appealed that decision. The other two defendants — the President and his Press Secretary — moved to dismiss for want of standing. The district judge denied that motion. 691 F.Supp.2d 890 (W.D.Wis. 2010). The judge later concluded that both the statute and all proclamations issued under it violate the establishment clause. 705 F.Supp.2d 1039 (W.D.Wis. 2010). The judge issued a declaratory judgment that § 119 is invalid, plus an injunction forbidding the President of the United States to issue any proclamation under § 119. 705 F.Supp.2d at 1070. The President and the Press Secretary have appealed.
Section 119 imposes duties on the President alone. It does not require any private person to do anything — or for that matter to take any action in response to whatever the President proclaims. If anyone suffers injury, therefore, that person is the President, who is not complaining. No one has standing to object to a statute that imposes duties on strangers. See, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). See also Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004), which holds that a person who objects (on establishment clause grounds) to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance lacks standing to contest the Pledge's content, when the litigant has not been obliged to say the Pledge himself and does not have parental rights with respect to a pupil who is present when the Pledge is recited. It takes an invasion of one's own rights to create standing. (Plaintiffs do not contend that they come within the rare situation in which a statute's addressees cannot protect themselves and jus tertii litigation may be authorized. Nor do plaintiffs invoke taxpayer standing. See Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1436, 179 L.Ed.2d 523 (2011); Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 127 S.Ct. 2553, 168 L.Ed.2d 424 (2007).)
Unlike § 119, the President's proclamations are addressed to plaintiffs, in common with all citizens. The President's 2010 proclamation includes this sentence: "I call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us." But although this proclamation speaks to all citizens, no one is obliged to pray, any more than a person would be obliged to hand over his money if the President asked all citizens to support the Red Cross and other charities. It is not just that there are no penalties for noncompliance; it is that disdaining the President's proclamation is not a "wrong." The President has made a request; he has not issued a command. No one is injured by a request that can be declined. Cf. Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 5-6, 105 S.Ct. 308, 83 L.Ed.2d 165 (1984) (police are entitled to ask people to answer questions, or consent to search, even when they lack the authority to compel favorable action); United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (same).
A President frequently calls on citizens to do things that they prefer not to do — to which, indeed, they may be strongly opposed on political or religious grounds. Yet no one supposes that the Republican Party has standing to ask the judiciary to redress the "injury" inflicted when President Obama speaks to his own supporters and tries to influence the undecided. Nor would any (sensible) person suppose that a court could take a blue pencil to a President's inaugural address or State of the Union speech and remove statements that may offend some members of the audience. President Lincoln's second inaugural address, likely the greatest speech ever made by an American President, mentions God seven times and prayer three times, including the sentence: "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away." The address is chiseled in stone at the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall. An argument that the prominence of these words injures every citizen, and that the Judicial Branch could order them to be blotted out, would be dismissed as preposterous.
Plaintiffs contend that they are injured because they feel excluded, or made unwelcome, when the President asks them to engage in a religious observance that is contrary to their own principles. It is difficult to see how any reader of the 2010 proclamation would feel excluded or unwelcome. Here again is the proclamation's only sentence that explicitly requests citizens to pray: "I call upon the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I invite all people of faith to join me in asking for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection as we meet the challenges before us." But let us suppose that plaintiffs nonetheless feel slighted. Still, hurt feelings differ from legal injury. The "value interests of concerned bystanders" ( United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 687, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973)) do not support standing to sue.
If a perceived slight, or a feeling of exclusion, were enough, then Michael Newdow would have had standing to challenge the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, yet the Supreme Court held that he lacks standing. Similarly, if offense at a public official's support of religion were enough, the plaintiffs would have had standing in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). A federal agency donated surplus property to an educational institution that was supervised by a religious order. The Court held that persons who objected to the transfer lacked standing, because the transfer did not injure them. Everything that plaintiffs say in support of their own claim of injury either was, or could have been, said in Valley Forge as well. If plaintiffs have standing to challenge the President's proclamation, then Newdow and Valley Forge are dead letters.
Plaintiffs rely principally on a series of decisions in which this circuit has held that persons who are obliged to view religious displays in order to access public services, or reach their jobs, have standing to contest the displays' contents. See, e.g., American Civil Liberties Union v. St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1986); Gonzales v. North Township, 4 F.3d 1412 (7th Cir. 1993); Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292, 299-301 (7th Cir. 2000) ( Books I); Books v. Elkhart County, 401 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2005) ( Books II). Three of these decisions predate Newdow, and in the only post- Newdow decision ( Books II) the litigants did not ask the court to revisit Books I; the panel in Books II did not tackle the standing question independently or mention Newdow. Only one of the four decisions discusses Valley Forge, and none attempts to reconcile its holding with Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Zielke, 845 F.2d 1463 (7th Cir. 1988), which holds that viewers of an unwelcome religious display lack standing.
Eventually we may need to revisit the subject of observers' standing in order to reconcile this circuit's decisions, but today is not the time. We observed in St. Charles that, as a result of Valley Forge, "[t]he fact that the plaintiffs do not like a cross to be displayed on public property — even that they are deeply offended by such a display — does not confer standing". 794 F.2d at 268. What did provide standing, we held, is that the plaintiffs had altered their daily commute, thus incurring costs in both time and money, to avoid the unwelcome religious display.
NOW, THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable inter-positions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
Newdow does not support the majority's conclusion. The only standing-related issue before the Court in Newdow was whether Newdow had standing as a parent even though he lacked the right to litigate as his daughter's "next friend." Id. at 15, 124 S.Ct. 2301. The Court granted certiorari on two questions only: (1) whether Newdow had standing as a noncustodial parent to challenge the school district's policy; and (2) if so, whether the policy offended the First Amendment. Id. at 10, 124 S.Ct. 2301. The Court concluded only that Newdow lacked prudential standing — not that he lacked Article III standing. Id. at 17-18, 124 S.Ct. 2301. In fact, Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurrence explicitly states, "To be clear, the Court does not dispute that respondent Newdow . . . satisfies the requisites of Article III standing." Id. at 20, 124 S.Ct. 2301 (Rehnquist, J., concurring).
Newdow's complaint and brief cite several additional bases for standing: that Newdow "at times has himself attended — and will in the future attend — class with his daughter;" that he "has considered teaching elementary school students in [the School District];" that he has "attended and will continue to attend" school board meetings at which the Pledge is "routinely recited," and that the School District uses his tax dollars to implement its Pledge policy. Even if these arguments suffice to establish Article III standing, they do not respond to our prudential standing concerns. . . .
Nor, as the majority suggests, must the plaintiffs alter their behavior in order to have a cognizable injury. In Doe v. County of Montgomery, 41 F.3d 1156, 1161-62 (7th Cir. 1994), we held that whether a plaintiff has altered his behavior is not controlling. We stated that a plaintiff can also satisfy the standing requirement by establishing that he is subject to direct and unwelcome exposure to religious messages. Id. The majority calls into question our precedent in Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292, 299-301 (7th Cir. 2000) (hereinafter " Books I"), and Books v. Elkhart County, 401 F.3d 857, 861-62 (7th Cir. 2005) (hereinafter " Books II"), which reaffirmed the principle that a plaintiff need not allege a change in behavior to have standing, because those cases were decided before Newdow or did not mention Newdow. But Newdow would not have changed the analyses because it did not address Article III standing.
I also do not see a need to call into question those cases on the grounds that they did not address Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982) or attempt to reconcile their holdings with Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Zielke, 845 F.2d 1463 (7th Cir. 1988). Books I and Books II both rely heavily on Doe, which addressed both Valley Forge and Zielke. Doe harmonized the holding that an allegation of direct exposure to unwelcome religious conduct satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement with Zielke's holding that the plaintiffs in that case did not have standing to object to a Ten Commandments display in a park. Doe, 41 F.3d at 1161. In Doe, we explained that the plaintiffs in Zielke did not alter their behavior "and [they] failed to demonstrate that they were exposed to the monument during their normal routines or in the course of their usual driving or walking routes." Doe, 41 F.3d at 1161.
The rule in every other circuit that has considered the question is that while an allegation of a change in behavior is sufficient to confer standing, it is not required. Suhre v. Haywood County, 131 F.3d 1083, 1087-88 (4th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff need not allege a change in behavior to challenge religious display); Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky. v. Grayson County, 591 F.3d 837, 843 (6th Cir. 2010) (standing satisfied by allegations of direct and unwelcome contact with government-sponsored religious object); Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1251-52 (9th Cir. 2007) (psychological harm resulting from direct contact with religious symbol is sufficient to confer standing and a change in behavior is not required); Foremaster v. City of St. George, 882 F.2d 1485, 1490-91 (10th Cir. 1989) (no change in behavior required to challenge religious display); Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687, 692-93 (11th Cir. 1987) (same). I see no need to diverge from this rule.
The Court simply has not been clear as to what distinguishes the psychological injury produced by conduct with which one disagrees from an injury that suffices to give rise to an injury-in-fact in Establishment Clause cases. As the Ninth Circuit recently noted, the Court has decided cases in many contexts where the plaintiffs claimed that they were hurt by exposure to unwelcome religious messages from the government, including cases involving a creche in a county courthouse, a creche in a public park, the Ten Commandments displayed on the grounds of a state capitol, the Ten Commandments displayed at a courthouse, a cross displayed in a national park, prayer in a football game, school prayer, a moment of silence at school, Bible reading at a public school, and a religious invocation at graduation. Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City of San Francisco, 624 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Supreme Court cases). In all of those cases, the Court treated standing as sufficient, even though it appears that nothing was affected but the religious or irreligious sentiments of the plaintiffs. Id. "To ignore the import of those cases for the standing analysis, one would have to believe the Supreme Court repeatedly overlooked a major standing problem and decided a plethora of highly controversial cases unnecessarily and inappropriately." Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). Yet, as recently as last week, the Court stated in Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn that even though it had decided a number of Establishment Clause cases on the merits that appeared to be in tension with its decision to find no standing in the case before it, those cases were not dispositive because they did not address the threshold standing question. Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. (2011).