« Ind. Decisions - Several 7th Circuit decisions of interest today | Main | About the Indiana Law Blog - going strong as 2005 draws toward a close »

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Ind. Decisions - Federal Court limits prayers in Indiana House [Updated]

Just posted on the Indianapolis Star website a few minutes ago:

A federal court judge today barred the speaker of the House of Representatives from permitting the saying of sectarian prayers at the beginning of session days.

Judge David Hamilton did not ban prayers in the House. But he ordered that any person chosen to give the invocation be informed that it must not advance any one faith or be used to attempt to convert listeners.

Hamilton further said the forum cannot be used to disparage other faiths. The decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union against Speaker Brian Bosma, alleging that the prayers overwhelmingly promoted Christian beliefs to the exclusion of other faiths.

Here is a link to the 60-page ruling in Hinrichs, et al. v. Bosma. Some quotes:
Four Indiana residents and taxpayers have sued the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Indiana General Assembly. They allege that most of the prayers the Speaker has permitted to open House sessions are sectarian Christian prayers, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Such prayers are deemed government speech for purposes of applying the Establishment Clause. Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. * * *

To summarize, the evidence shows that the official prayers offered to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion: the resurrection and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Establishment Clause “means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions). ‘The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.’” County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 605 (1989), quoting Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The sectarian content of the substantial majority of official prayers in the Indiana House therefore takes the prayers outside the safe harbor the Supreme Court recognized for inclusive, non-sectarian legislative prayers in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Plaintiffs have standing as Indiana taxpayers to bring their claims, and they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. This relief will not prohibit the House from opening its session with prayers if it chooses to do so, but will require that any official prayers be inclusive and non-sectarian, and not advance one particular religion. * * *

Conclusion. When the Founders of this Nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” The Founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths. The Founders also knew centuries of history in which religious conflicts had caused war and oppression. They recognized that even the best intentions of people of faith can lead to division, exclusion, and worse. And they recognized that a majority who sees its faith as true and benign can be tempted in a democratic republic to try to use the power and prestige of government to advance that faith in ways that would actually divide and exclude.

All of us who have inherited the liberties of the religion clauses of the First Amendment continue to elaborate on their meaning and application one case at a time. In this case, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction against the Speaker in his official capacity barring him from permitting sectarian prayer as part of the official proceedings of the Indiana House of Representatives. If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer (a) that it must be nonsectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief, and (b) that they should refrain from using Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal. See Simpson v. Chesterfield County, 404 F.3d at 278-79, 284.

The court shall issue a permanent injunction accordingly.

Here is an AP story from the Star website.

For background, see this ILB entry from October 28, 2005.

[Updated] Here is a statement from Speaker Bosma in response to the ruling:

I am shocked and dismayed by the Court’s decision today. I find the Court’s unprecedented decision disturbing in that it directs me, as Speaker, to advise people that they are prohibited from using “Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal” when offering the invocation in the Indiana House of Representatives. It is intolerable that a court in this free society would ask a person to censure the prayer they offer in the tradition of their faith. The prayers that have been offered in the Indiana House of Representatives have represented many faiths of both our members and our citizens. The prayers that have been offered have not attempted to proselytize, advance or disparage any faith or belief. In my years of service in the Indiana General Assembly, I have always appreciated the diversity and sincerity with which the invited clerics and members have led us in the invocation. The ruling today forbids invited ministers and members to continue to exercise their right to free speech and pray in the tradition of their faith.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 30, 2005 02:16 PM
Posted to Ind Fed D.Ct. Decisions