Mark & Galusha, LLC, Civil Rights and 1st Amendment Lawyers, Edison, Woodbridge, and Sayreville Middlesex County, NJ
The 14th Amendment, otherwise known as the Establishment Clause, already has a fair amount of Supreme Court rulings under its belt in order to provide national laws which govern the separation of Church and State, including the matter of Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) where Justice Hugo Black put it simply by stating that "neither a state nor the Federal government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups or vice versa." In addition, the Supreme Court also weighed in the matter of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), by not permitting government to become excessively entangled with religion. Nevertheless, while the Establishment Clause may be viewed by some as a welcome opportunity to practice their beliefs without outside influences, others feel that it is oppressive, specially as the matters regarding "State vs. Religion" become more complex. It is an issue that invokes passionate response from both sides.
Recently, the Supreme Court decided not to decide regarding the issue of public prayer, ending a five year debate over public prayer which takes place on a monthly basis at Forsyth County's Board of Commissioner's Meetings. In the matter of Janet Joyner, et al. v. Forsyth County, NC, No. 10-1232, Janet Joyner and Constance Lynn Blackmon filed suit claiming that the Board had violated the "non-sectarian" prayer practice of the Board instituted in 2007 which essentially violated their civil rights. The prayer, like the majority of the prayers at Forsyth County's meetings, were certainly Christian in nature and made references to "Jesus," the "Virgin Birth" and the "Cross of Calvary." The Plaintiffs, who had arrived at Forsyth County, to make a petition, felt that their requests would be negatively greeted if they did not participate in the prayer session which included standing and bowing upon request.
Eventually, the matter made it's way to the Fourth Circuit, following the District Court's decision in favor of Plaintiffs during summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reviewed some prominent cases that analyzed the impact of the Establishment Clause including Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 786 (1983), wherein the Supreme Court felt that the tradition of prayer during legislative meetings was important. They also analyzed Lemon, supra, which provided three tests in which to determine if a violation exists: (1) the status must have a secular legislative purpose (2) its primary effect must be neither one that advances or inhibits and (3) it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.
The Fourth Circuit reached the conclusion that the District Court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs by applying the Lemon Test. It was determined that Forsyth County did not have a secular legislative purpose to their prayers, that the primary effect did inhibit and despite the best efforts of the local government to prevent such an event, excessive government entanglement was visible. It was determined that the civil rights of Ms. Joyner and Ms. Blackmon were violated.
In response to this ruling, Defendants filed a petition with the Supreme Court for certiorari entitled "Forsyth County, NC v. Janet Joyner and Constance Lynn Blackmon." Specially, Petitioners sought a finite decision from the Supreme Court by presenting two questions: (1) If the 14th Amendment compels the government to analyze sectarian prayers? and (2) If reciting prayers on a recurrent basis violates the 14th Amendment? While the fires of the debate may remain hot, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Petition of Forsyth County, NC, leaving the previous decision of the 4th Circuit in effect.
In the similar matter, Doe v. Indian River School District, parents sued the Indian River School over a policy adopted by the school known as "Board Prayer at Regular Board Meetings Policy." The creators of this policy viewed same as a very diverse and inclusive policy as it offered the option of substituting the names of popular deities during prayer. Still, with the broad spectrum of potential names to utter during prayer, parents of several students sued the school board, claiming the Policy was unconstitutional and that it violated the students'civil rights.
Initially, the District Court decided in favor of the Board by applying a ruling found in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), wherein the Nebraska legislative branch was provided the ability to use an opening prayer prior to the beginning of their sessions. Yet, on appeal, the decision was reserved in favor of the parents. The Appellate Division used the ruling made in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 592 (1992) among other school prayer cases for purposes of comparison in this matter rather than Marsh. The Appellate Court found that the District Court was reaching by drawing conclusions from Marsh and ultimately decided that the policy of Indian River was unconstitutional.
While it is clear that the debate will continue for many years to come, a government violating the civil rights of its citizens is illegal, no matter how "innocent" their acts. If you feel that you have been subjected by your government to engaging in a religious practice against your beliefs, it is important that you seek legal counsel. Please do not hesitate to contact the firm of Mark & Galusha, LLC. We have vast experience in representing victims of civil rights violations throughout Somerset County. Please contact us by telephone at (908) 626-1001 or 973-440-2311. If you prefer to email us a full explanation of your situation, click the "contact us" page and tell us your story.
