Eight judges on 9th Circuit dissent sharply from school board prayer ruling

The Trump effect?

O’Scannlain: “The panel’s opinion is dripping with unrestrained urgency to insulate public school students from any hint of exposure to religion.” (photo University of Virginia)

The following comes from a Dec. 26 story in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Eight conservative judges on the federal appeals court in San Francisco, including both of President Trump’s appointees, dissented sharply Wednesday from a ruling that prohibited a public school board from opening its sessions with a prayer.

The case may be headed to the Supreme Court — and one Trump-appointed appellate judge said the high court should reconsider its longtime definition of the barriers between church and state.

In Wednesday’s proceedings, a majority of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request to reconsider a panel’s ruling in July that halted prayers and Bible readings at meetings of the Chino Valley Unified School District in San Bernardino County.

Trump appointee Ryan Nelson (photo from People for the American Way)

While the Supreme Court has allowed state legislatures and city councils to hold public prayers, citing centuries of tradition, the three-judge appellate panel in July said school boards are different because youngsters regularly attend their meetings to receive awards, put on talent shows or simply observe the proceedings.

The Supreme Court in 1962 prohibited public schools from conducting prayer sessions. Unlike prayers at legislative sessions, the appeals court said, a religious invocation at a school board meeting attended by students is not a “solemnizing and unifying prayer, directed at lawmakers themselves and conducted before an audience of mature adults free from coercive pressures to participate.”

Trump appointee Mark Bennett (photo Star Advertiser)

In an opinion joined by seven colleagues Wednesday, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain denounced the panel’s decision and said the court should have granted a rehearing.

“The panel bizarrely transforms the board meetings into a ‘school setting,’” O’Scannlain said. School boards exist to “legislate,” not to “educate,” he said, and thus are covered by Supreme Court rulings since 1983 allowing prayers at legislative sessions. He noted that a federal appeals court in New Orleans had allowed school board prayers in another case last year.

“The panel’s opinion is dripping with unrestrained urgency to insulate public school students from any hint of exposure to religion even outside of the classroom,” O’Scannlain said.

The dissenters included both of Trump’s Ninth Circuit appointees, Michael [sic] Bennett and Ryan Nelson. In a separate dissent joined by three colleagues, Nelson questioned the Supreme Court’s 1971 ruling that set strict standards for laws and government actions affecting religion: They must have a “secular legislative purpose” and an impact that “neither advances nor inhibits religion,” and they may not promote an “excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Religious conservatives have criticized those criteria, known as the Lemon test, which could be challenged in a case before the high court involving a 40-foot cross at a war memorial on public property in Maryland.

Nelson quoted the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who 25 years ago compared the Lemon test to “some ghoul in a late-night horror movie.” Since then, Nelson said, “the Lemon ghoul … has stalked the lower courts, no longer just frightening little children but increasingly devouring religious expression in the public square.”

Comments

  1. http://St.%20Christopher says

    The 9th Circuit decisions on sacred Democratic Party issues are execrable. But, why should people believe that the judiciary has escaped the kind of corruption so endemic in the legislative branch of government. President Trump was indeed correct in labeling a judge by his Presidential appointment (and CJ Roberts was wrong to deny it). The dissenting judges are entirely correct in issuing their views; hopefully the Supreme Court will clarify the “Church-State” line in a way that is consistent with the Constitution (where the phrase does not appear). But then, one must admire the Democrats; they do not shirk from showing their disdain over anything reflective of God or of His proper place in public events.

  2. I’ve never bought the idea that a prayer is somehow not a prayer at a public function. But that aside, if they do end up allowing opening prayers they should know that this will require that other groups — not just mainstream Christianity — will be allowed to offer their opening prayers. This includes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sedavacantists, Humanists, and Satanists.

  3. http://Jake says

    These youngster being protected by the court will grow to be adults incapable of acting as adults. Excuse me they already are just look at those populating college campuses as students and staff.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.

Speak Your Mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

COMMENTS POLICY: Comments are limited to 750 characters and will be truncated at 750. Comments should not contain offensive or libelous language. Please strive to be civil. All comments are subject to approval by our moderator and to editing as the moderator deems appropriate. Inclusion of your email address is optional.