An appeals court panel apparently has given the okay for prayers mentioning Jesus’ name in the Indiana state legislature to return, tossing out a lawsuit Oct. 30 that had garnered national attention two years ago when the prayers were ruled unconstitutional.
The 2-1 decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for social conservatives, although the justices avoided dealing directly with whether the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as the lower court had ruled.
Instead, the majority ruled that the four Indiana residents who brought the lawsuit lacked standing because they had “not shown that the legislature has extracted from them tax dollars for the establishment and implantation” of a program that supposedly violates the Establishment Clause.
Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, applauded the ruling. ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the judges to reinstate the prayer practice.
“Those who oppose Christian invocations are essentially saying that the Founders were violating the Constitution as they were writing it,” Lavy said in a statement. “People of all religions have always had an equal opportunity to offer prayer before Indiana legislative sessions, and this ruling ensures that those who offer prayers in the name of Jesus will not lose that opportunity either.”
The lawsuit was brought against the speaker of the state House of Representatives by the Indiana affiliate of the ACLU, which won the initial round in November 2005 when U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton ruled prayers must be “non-sectarian” and must not mention “Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal.” Later, Hamilton clarified the ruling and said it applied to all sectarian prayers, not just those mentioning Christ.
Of the prayers offered during the 2005 legislative session, a majority were Christian in nature, mentioning “Jesus” or “Christ,” although at least one prayer referenced Buddha. Hamilton ruled that individuals do not have a right to “use an official platform like the Speaker’s podium at the opening of a House session to express their own religious faiths.”
But the Seventh Circuit Court panel ruled that the four citizens did not have standing to bring the case, in part because the House prayer program “is not mandated by statute” (that is, a legislative-passed law) but is simply a rule the House has adopted on its own. Previous Supreme Court cases – including this year’s ruling in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation – allow for such a distinction, the majority said.