The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Legislative Prayer Case, Hinrich v. Bosma on technical grounds, saying that the Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because the taxpayer dollars used to support the “Minister of the Day” program, and therefore to support sectarian prayer by the Indiana House of Representatives, were not closely enough related to the content of the prayers to entitle Plaintiffs to bring suit as taxpayers.
I have not had time to read the opinion yet and am just reading the quoted materials provided by the Indiana Law Blog, but I wanted to make the reason for the dismissal more or less clear before the meme started going around that the 7th Circuit had some how made a determination that sectarian prayer as official business of the Indiana House of Representatives was permitted under the First Amendment. Instead, the 7th Circuit avoided answering that question one way or the other.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Wood makes much the same point:
My colleagues have concluded that this lawsuit must be cut off at the threshold issue of standing. While I do not agree with them on this point, before turning to that question I wish to highlight the implications (or lack thereof) of their decision. Nothing in the majority opinion should be understood as a ruling one way or the other on the merits of the House’s procedures. Should someone come along who meets the majority’s concept of standing, the question whether the House may sponsor prayers at State expense urging everyone in the chamber to adhere to Christianity, or edicts declaring the room a “hallowed place,†or musical exhortations, revival style, to “talk with Jesus,†is an open one.
Judge Wood’s dissent also opens with a discussion, well worth reading, attributing much of America’s success in religious co-existence to the Founder’s balancing act — allowing individuals to practice their religion freely while restricting government’s ability to get involved with religion at all.
Too late Doug…the IndyStar website is already trumpeting, “Prayer OK in Indiana House”.
I saw that and left a comment on their forum. Fat lot of good that’ll do.
Just a thought, but the title to post could be made a bit tidier by getting rid of one of the two forms of “dismiss”.
Heh, thanks —
Department of Redundancy Department.
Doug –
More formally, that’s the:
Doesn’t this ruling, premised on the Supreme Court judgment in Hein v. FFRF, effectively take away the taxpayer’s right to petition the Government on 1st Amendment violations?
What other egregious scenarios could this pave the way?
Later editions of the Star, like the one I received at home this morning, had a revised headline: “Court answers only part of House prayer”.
I’ve only read this case briefly and Hein, not at all, but yes, it certainly seems like it could eviscerate the taxpayer’s right to correct 1st Amendment wrongs since physical or property damages to the individual are usually non-existent.
Traditional notions about an individual’s right to sue don’t fit really well with the sorts of harm that the Establishment Clause seeks to prevent. I think it really depends how expansively Hein is read in the future. But, again, I haven’t even read Hein, so take my opinion on this with that huge caveat.