The US Supreme Court is declining to take a case presented by the city of Ocala, Florida that challenges a lawsuit brought by atheists claiming the city violated their constitutional right to religious freedom by holding a prayer vigil in the wake of a shooting spree, Justice Neil Gorsuch said on Monday
WASHINGTON (Pakistan Point News / Sputnik - 06th March, 2023) The US Supreme Court is declining to take a case presented by the city of Ocala, Florida that challenges a lawsuit brought by atheists claiming the city violated their constitutional right to religious freedom by holding a prayer vigil in the wake of a shooting spree, Justice Neil Gorsuch said on Monday.
In 2014, the city of Ocala held a prayer vigil after three children were wounded in a shooting spree. Uniformed police chaplains appeared onstage with other community religious leaders to pray for the injured children.
Several atheists who attended the event sued the city and several officials in response, citing violations of the US Constitution's First Amendment. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the US government from establishing a state religion.
A US District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the atheists, finding that they had standing to contest the speech under the terms of the Lemon v. Kurtzman case, which created the so-called Lemon test to judge violations of the Establishment Clause.
However, the Supreme Court effectively overturned Lemon v. Kurtzman in its 2022 Kennedy v. Bremerton school District ruling, which clarified protections for personal religious observance by government employees.
"In Kennedy, this Court put to rest any question about Lemon's vitality. We held that claims alleging an establishment of religion must be measured against the Constitution's original and historical meaning, not the sensitivities of a hypothetical reasonable observer," Gorsuch said in a statement. "The city asks us to take this case to make just this point. It is an understandable request. But I see no need for the Court's intervention at this juncture."
The case will remain remanded to the District Court to consider the implications of the Kennedy decision. Gorsuch said that although he expects lower courts will recognize the Lemon test's lack of legal standing, the city is free to seek future relief from the Supreme Court if he is mistaken.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion on the court's denial of certiorari in the case. The Supreme Court should have taken the case to clarify jurisdictional matters, Thomas said.
"Although the Eleventh Circuit was correct that Lemon is no longer good law, we should have granted certiorari to review whether respondents had standing to bring their claims," Thomas said. "I would have granted certiorari to determine whether the courts below lacked jurisdiction. I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the 'offended observer' theory of standing applied below."
Thomas noted that the respondents voluntarily attended the vigil with full knowledge of its religious content.
