SCOTUS NEWS

Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions

By Amy Howe
on Mar 6, 2023 at 12:20 pm

{snip the admiralty law part, even though it's of interest to my neighbor}

Over a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas, the justices denied review in City of Ocala v. Rojas, in which they had been asked to decide whether and when lawsuits challenging the government’s sponsorship of religious events can go forward – and, in particular, whether plaintiffs alleging psychic or emotional injuries from being exposed to religious messages have a right to sue, known as standing.

The case was filed by Art Rojas and Lucinda Hale, two Florida residents who attended a prayer vigil in Ocala, Florida, sponsored by the city’s police department in the town square. Rojas and Hale then went to federal court, where they argued that the vigil violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which bars the government from both establishing an official religion and preferring one religion over another. ... Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit allowed the lawsuit to go forward. That led the city to seek review in the Supreme Court, which on Monday rejected the city’s appeal.

In a six-page opinion, Thomas argued that the justices should have granted the city’s petition for review. He had, he wrote, “serious doubts about the legitimacy of the ‘offended observer’ theory of standing applied below.” Even in cases involving the establishment clause, he argued, plaintiffs should only be allowed to bring a lawsuit if they have suffered concrete injuries from the conduct that serves as the basis for their lawsuit; psychological injuries are not enough. If the justices do not curtail “offended observer” standing here, he warned, it could spread to other areas of the law as well.

Justice Neil Gorsuch penned a short statement regarding the denial of review in the city’s case. Like Thomas, he expressed doubts about the plaintiffs’ right to sue, noting that the Supreme Court “has never endorsed the notion that an ‘offended observer’ may bring an Establishment Clause claim.” But, unlike Thomas, he saw no need for the court to take up the question now, noting that the dispute would continue in the lower courts, so that the city still would have the option to return to the Supreme Court later in the litigation.

{snip}

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 6, 2023, 12:20 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/03/justices-take-up-case-on-federal-admiralty-law-seek-governments-views-on-two-pending-petitions/

POLITICS

Atheists avoid — for now — Supreme Court review of lawsuit on Florida shooting prayer vigil

PUBLISHED MON, MAR 6 2023 | 1:54 PM EST | UPDATED MON, MAR 6 2023 | 6:12 PM UNDEFINED EST

Dan Mangan
@_DANMANGAN

KEY POINTS

• The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal challenging the right of a group of atheists to sue the city of Ocala, Florida, on First Amendment grounds.

• The atheists group was suing the city after it arranged a Christian prayer vigil in response to a series of drive-by shootings there in 2014 that left several children injured.

• The Supreme Court’s refusal clears the way for a federal district court judge to now consider whether a 2022 ruling by the high court means that the atheists’ earlier court victory must be reversed.

• The Supreme Court last year ruled that a Washington state football coach had the right to pray on the field after games.

The Supreme Court handed a group of atheists a win Monday when it declined to take a case, Ocala v. Rojas, seeking to block their lawsuit over a 2014 prayer vigil arranged by the city of Ocala, Florida, after drive-by shootings that injured several children.

But the victory might be relatively short-lived. ... The decision clears the way for a federal judge to rule on whether a 2018 decision that found Ocala violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment in arranging the vigil should be tossed out. In an unrelated case, the Supreme Court ruled in June in favor of a public high school football coach who prayed after games, which attorneys say indicates a potential win for Ocala.

In the Florida case, the Ocala police chief organized and promoted a prayer vigil whose attendees included police chaplains. ... Several atheists attended the event and later sued on the grounds they were offended by its alleged violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits governments from establishing or favoring a particular religion. ... The atheists, represented by the American Humanist Association, won on those grounds in 2018 when a federal judge ruled that the event violated that clause.

The judge, in his ruling, applied the so-called “Lemon test,” named after a 1971 Supreme Court ruling. ... That test required government action to have a secular purpose, that the government not be entangled with religion, and that a public program not have its primary effect to advance or inhibit a religion. ... The judge awarded nominal damages of $1 per plaintiff, in addition to attorneys’ fees and other costs.

{snip}