|
This dispute has been to the Fourth Circuit
twice.
In the first appeal, Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, the ACLU of the National Capitol Area, the ACLU Foundation of
Maryland, the Anti-Defamation League, People for the American Way, the National
Education Association, the National School Boards Association, the Maryland
Association of Boards of Education, the National Parent Teacher Association, the
American Association of School Administrators, and Montgomery Soccer filed
amicus briefs supporting Montgomery County Public Schools.
In the second appeal, the National School Boards
Association and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education filed an amicus
brief supporting the school district.
Greg Baylor
Gregory S. Baylor From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:21 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: 4th Circuit rules (again) in favor of the Good News Club Excellent question. One might add another: what position did the ACLU and/or Americans United take in this most recent case? There might well be hypocrisy on both sides of this one. The earlier case you're referring to was Simpson v Chesterfield Co. Board of Supervisors. That ruling can be found at http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/041045.P.pdf. It appears at first blush that the court did not even consider the question of this being a public forum of any kind, and looked primarily at Marsh v Chambers as the controlling precedent. From that ruling: The parties here differ as to which lines of precedent govern this case. Simpson rejects the County’s argument that the principles of Marsh v. Chambers suffice to resolve the dispute. She instead offers, and the district court accepted, Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (finding "denominational preference" to violate the Establishment Clause), as well as Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1971) (creating a general framework to evaluate Establishment Clause challenges). We think her reliance on these cases is misplaced and conclude that Marsh v. Chambers controls the outcome of this case. The court went on to note that Marsh was more on point and that it post dated both Larson and Lemon, and the court did not apply either of those cases in March. So it appears that the plaintiffs did not raise the public forum issue and the court did not consider it. Ed Brayton |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
