Legal Challenge
| This section may contain original research. |
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued to challenge the designation of a National Day of Prayer. On October 3, 2008, the Wisconsin-based organization filed suit in a federal court in Madison, naming as defendants President George W. Bush; White House press secretary Dana Perino; Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle; and evangelist Dobson's wife, Shirley Dobson, in her capacity as chair of the National Day of Prayer Task Force. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) provided defense for Shirley Dobson while government lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb to dismiss the case, arguing principally that the group has no legal standing to sue.
On March 1, 2010 U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb stated that FFRF's lawsuit can proceed forward because the plaintiffs had shown that they suffered "concrete injury" that can potentially be remedied by judicial action. Judge Crabb stated about those supporting the federal law designating the National Day of Prayer, "adopting defendants' view of standing would allow the government to have unrestrained authority to demean members of any religious group without legal consequence. The federal government could declare the 'National Day of Anti-Semitism' or even declare Christianity the official religion of the United States, but no one would have standing to sue because no one would have to 'pass by' those declarations." This was in regard to the defendants position that the plaintiffs did not have standing to engage in the lawsuit. Mr. Bolton, legal counsel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation stated, "The Foundation has never been opposed to nongovernment parties designating and participating in their own Day of Prayer activities. Here, however, government officials have too often adopted the religious perspective of Mrs. Dobson and the National Day of Prayer Task Force as the official public statement and position of the government. To the extent that Mrs. Dobson and the Task Force, operating from the Focus on the Family campus in Colorado Springs, concentrate on the private sphere, that is their prerogative. FFRF is concerned about the government's respect for the separation of church and state, which the court intends to address."
On April 15, 2010, Judge Crabb ruled that the statute establishing the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional as it is "an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function." Judge Crabb also stated in her opinion, "If the government were interested only in acknowledging the role of religion in America, it could have designated a 'National Day of Religious Freedom' rather than promote a particular religious practice." However, Crabb stayed her ruling pending the completion of appeals.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a notice to appeal the ruling on April 22, 2010, and on April 14, 2011 a panel at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overruled Crabb's decision, stating that "a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury." They further stated that the President is free to make appeals to the public based on many kinds of grounds, including political and religious, and that such requests do not obligate citizens to comply and do not encroach on citizens' rights. The same day, the Freedom From Religion Foundation announced that it would seek an en banc review of the ruling by the full Seventh Circuit court.
Read more about this topic: National Day Of Prayer
Famous quotes containing the words legal and/or challenge:
“The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.”
—Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)
“If the technology cannot shoulder the entire burden of strategic change, it nevertheless can set into motion a series of dynamics that present an important challenge to imperative control and the industrial division of labor. The more blurred the distinction between what workers know and what managers know, the more fragile and pointless any traditional relationships of domination and subordination between them will become.”
—Shoshana Zuboff (b. 1951)