The Supreme Court issued a decision on Monday that, quite frankly, took quite a few people by surprise.
The court rejected a request by a Florida city to dismiss a suit by an Atheist group that was upset over a city prayer vigil.
The vigil was held after a local shooting.
Freedom of Religion?
The case centers around two individuals who are part of a group but who also happen to be police chaplains.
Lucinda Hale and Art Rojas are members of the American Humanist Association.
During the vigil, which was a service in response to a 2014 shooting where numerous children were injured, they were praying and singing on stage, while in uniform.
The atheists claim that the prayer aspect of the vigil excluded them because of their atheist beliefs.
The city of Ocala referred the Supreme Court review 11th Circuit’s 2018 decision granting the atheists standing in light of the court’s 2022 opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.
In that decision, the court ruled that the football coach could lead post-game voluntary prayer groups.
Fox News reported, “Gorsuch wrote in an accompanying statement that the legal theory the lower courts used to grant the atheists standing — called the ‘Lemon test’ for a 1971 Supreme Court ruling — was now defunct.”
The “Lemon test required courts to consider whether the action had a secular purpose, whether the government was entangled with religion and whether the principal or primary effect of the action advanced or inhibited religion.”
Gorsuch explained, “As this Court explained in Kennedy, the Lemon test on which the District Court relied is no longer good law.
“Moving forward, I expect lower courts will recognize the offended observer standing has no more foundation in the law than the Lemon test that inspired it. If I am wrong, the city is free to seek relief here after final judgment.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, as expected, dissented from the ruling, having “serious doubts” about the atheists legal standing in the case.
He added, “Moving forward, I expect lower courts will recognize the offended observer standing has no more foundation in the law than the Lemon test that inspired it. If I am wrong, the city is free to seek relief here after final judgment.”
Source: Fox News
