JD Journal » Separation of Church and State

Morning Roundup

joshua — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:46:54 +0000

Good morning! Today is March 15, the Ides of March, and here’s a look back at Friday’s news…

A former aide to Vice President Joe Biden has joined Holland & Knight…

The 9th Circuit upheld references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on currency…

Justice Ginsburg spoke out against judicial elections…

DLA Piper is facing a lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty…

The UK’s Freshfields has added three partners on the east coast…

Darby & Darby is closing its doors after a hundred years in business…

Sidley Austin added two attorneys in London…

and Jenner & Block released a report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers…

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds “God” Reference in Pledge of Allegiance

sara — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:56:51 +0000

The 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 yesterday that references to “God” in both the Pledge of Allegiance and on coins and paper bills are not violating the separation of church and state. In the majority opinion Judge Carlos Bea wrote, “The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded.” Bea also said that schools do not require students to recite the pledge. The reference to “God” was added to it in 1954 at the height of the Cold War.

In a separate 3-0 ruling the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto, “In God We Trust” on coins and bills. The judges cited an earlier ruling that the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion”.

In 2002 the same court ruled in atheist Michael Newdow’s favor. The court said at that time that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment restriction against an established state religion. The ruling caused uproar, a Senate resolution was passed condemning the ruling and then President Bush called it “ridiculous”. The suit reached the Supreme Court in 2004 but the Court said Newdow did not have the standing to file the suit because he didn’t have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case. Newdow filed an identical case on behalf of other parents with the same objections and in 2005 a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow’s favor, sending the case back to the appeals court.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote a 123 page dissent to the 60 page majority opinion. He was one of the judges who ruled in Newdow’s favor in 2002. In his dissent Reinhardt said, “Under no sound legal analysis adhering to the binding Supreme Court precedent could this court uphold state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the ‘under God’ version of the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools.”

Newdow will ask the appeals court to rehear the case and if it rejects his request, he says he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The opinion can be read here.

Separation of Church and Cars?

joshua — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:41:30 +0000

This one comes to us from South Carolina where the state legislature approved a new license plate design available for purchase containing the words “I believe” and the image of a cross.

Yesterday, a federal judge in SC shot down the license plates, saying “The ‘I Believe’ Act’s primary effect is to promote a specific religion, Christianity”. But judge Cameron Currie didn’t stop there. She went on to say “Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular”. Her objection was not limited to the promotion of a specific religion, but of religion in general, which makes me wonder whether she would have permitted a plan to include license plates that featured a spread of religious symbols. Would a law that let residents of the Palmetto State choose a plate that reflected their individual beliefs meet the same fate?

Speculation aside, Judge Currie thought this law was egregious enough to warrant additional action, ordering the state to pay the legal costs of the people that brought the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Ruling Keeps The Ten Commandments In A Public Park

Erik Even — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:32:09 +0000

The Supreme Court has ruled that public parks can display a monument featuring the Ten Commandments without having to allow private groups to put up monuments of their own. Justices on Wednesday unanimously overturned a ruling that required the town of Pleasant Grove, Utah to give equal park space to the church of Summum, who wanted to display their “seven apphorisms,” in a part with a monument featuring the Ten Commandments.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said monuments typically represent “government speech” and don’t create the type of “public forum” that would require equal access for private groups under the Constitution’s free-speech clause.

“It is hard to imagine how a public park could be opened up for the installation of permanent monuments by every person or group wishing to engage in that form of expression,” Alito wrote.

The reaction from Church-State separation groups was mixed.

Welton Gaddy, president of the New York-based Interfaith Alliance Foundation, said the ruling permits religious favoritism by governments.

“Our public parks are a sanctuary for people of all faiths and belief systems,” he said. “They should not be used to endorse any one religion.”

The Anti-Defamation League said the ruling “does not disturb the bedrock constitutional principle that government may not favor one religion over another.”

Via Bloomberg News