Rumor has it that the ACLU of Indiana has decided it cannot devote resources to pursuing a Supreme Court review of the State House prayer case. As folks here might remember, Speaker Bosma oversaw some pretty strongly sectarian prayer as the official business of the Indiana House of Representatives. That practice was challenged in court. The District Court judge ruled that kind of sectarian prayer was inappropriate for government speech. (And let’s be clear – the speech was government speech, not individual speech. Different rules apply. Individuals were as free as ever to pray. It was simply harder for particular religious groups to mark their territory at the Indiana General Assembly). On review, the 7th Circuit did not reach the merits of whether the prayer was appropriate as government speech. Rather, it blazed a new trail in the obscure jurisprudence of “standing” and decided that the Plaintiffs were not proper parties to bring the case.
Apparently the thinking is that the chances of the Supreme Court taking the case is slim, and, if they did take the case, the chances for making the law worse are non-trivial.
I certainly appreciate the work of people like Mr. Hinrichs who was the lead plaintiff on the case (and the other plaintiffs as well — I just don’t remember their names off hand). I also appreciate the work of Ken Falk and the folks at the ACLU of Indiana. (And I say this as one currently involved in litigation with Mr. Falk on the other side.) These are the folks who throw a little salt down on the slippery slope so, even if we slide, perhaps we don’t slide so far away from our civil liberties. And they do it with not a great deal of financial reward.
Bummer.
I guess we have the prospect of more evangelical Christians throwing denominational gang signs from the Speaker’s podium to look forward to.
The ACLU and ICLU may work without much in the way of financial compensation, but I’m confident that’s not the case for Brian Bosma. I suspect he’s handsomely rewarded for his pandering.
Doug, in what matter do you find yourself in a contretemps with Mr. Falk? If the ICLU is involved in a collection matter, I know I’m curious… :)
The case is actually one where I represent the Tippecanoe County Sheriff. In this case, Mr. Falk represents a John Doe Plaintiff seeking an injunction against the Sheriff and the Prosecutor from enforcing a law restricting sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of school property.
Doug,
Mind posting your brief here after you’ve filed it with the court?
Or pass it along to the folks at the Sex Crimes blog.
I probably wouldn’t feel comfortable doing that. I like to keep my blogging and my work as separate as I can.
Doug,
I can dig it. But as a fellow avid reader of legal blogs, you can perhaps understand my curiosity to see how you throw down in constitutional law matters. :)
I throw down however my client wants me to throw down. :) One day, maybe I’ll become independently wealthy and choose my own causes.