December 2005 Ruling
On Dec. 5, 2005 Superior Court Judge Donald L. Smith (serving as an emergency judge) heard arguments on the case in a hearing that lasted less than a half hour. Lawyers on both sides were given seven and one-half minutes to make their case and no witnesses were heard. Assistant Attorney General Grady L. Balentine Jr. argued “that state oath-taking law is constitutional because it allows people to affirm if they don't wish to swear on the Christian Bible. No one is required to do that, that's our only position in this case.” The ACLU’s attorney Seth Cohen argued that if "Holy Scriptures" is interpreted to not include non-Christian texts, then the law is unconstitutional, as “the exclusive use of the Christian Bible for courtroom oaths violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution.” Both lawyers answered one of the Judge’s questions by agreeing to “a longstanding legal tradition: When a law is susceptible to multiple interpretations, a judge should always rely on the interpretation that makes the law constitutional.”
In his ruling Judge Smith dismissed Mateen's case, in part "because Mateen was able to testify that day, no legal controversy remained." Judge Smith "did not address whether state law allows people to use non-Christian texts for oath-taking, the main issue the ACLU wanted resolved." The executive director of the North Carolina chapter of the ACLU, Jennifer Rudinger, said “it would be very difficult for a person wishing to swear on a non-Christian text to halt a courtroom proceeding to pursue a legal challenge on the issue.” Mateen said “Had I known that it would be taken to this point, I wouldn't have affirmed. I could have postponed everything until they got some Qurans.” The ACLU was also surprised that Judge Smith cited “lack of an actual controversy” as a reason for dismissal because Grady Balentine the lawyer for the state attorney general's office did not make that argument. Balentine had only argued “that the law gives people another option if they don't wish to swear on the Christian Bible.”
On Dec. 15, 2005, a week after Smith’s ruling, the N.C. chapter of the ACLU announced they would appeal the decision. Their lawyer Seth Cohen told reporters “that the organization disagrees with the judge's finding” and that he was “confidant they will win in the N.C. Court of Appeals.” Cohen went on to say “It's a shame that this matter cannot be resolved sooner. All we have ever asked is that people of all faiths be able to put their hands on the holy text of their choice. It's that simple. We don't understand why this is such a big deal.” Cohen also said that members of Judaism have thrown their support behind the case as they would like to be able to swear on the Tanakh, and that this joining over the issue was one of the things “that's gotten lost in this case.”
Read more about this topic: ACLU Of N.C. & Syidah Matteen V. State Of North Carolina
Famous quotes containing the word ruling:
“A theory of the middle class: that it is not to be determined by its financial situation but rather by its relation to government. That is, one could shade down from an actual ruling or governing class to a class hopelessly out of relation to government, thinking of gov’t as beyond its control, of itself as wholly controlled by gov’t. Somewhere in between and in gradations is the group that has the sense that gov’t exists for it, and shapes its consciousness accordingly.”
—Lionel Trilling (1905–1975)