The Public Expression of Religion Act, or How the Right wishes to bankrupt the ACLU

 

 

1st Session H. R. 2679

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney’s fees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 26, 2005

Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. JENKINS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SODREL, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. PITTS, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. OTTER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. POE, and Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILLTo amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants may seek damages and attorney’s fees.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005′.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.

(a) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights- Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended–

• (1) by inserting `(a)’ before the first sentence; and

• (2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.’.

(b) Attorneys Fees- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.’.

————————————————————————————————

That is the text of the noxious bill which was just approved by the House Judiciary Committee. Under the aegis of “religous freedom,” the Republican Unenlightened House seeks to undermine all acts of relief from abuses resulting from ignoring the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

The purpose of this proposed legislation is simple: to bankrupt the ACLU by making an enjoiner of the award of attorneys fees from any damages awarded by a court in an Establishment case. Injunction alone would be the award of any damages. In other words, one may sue over publicly funded prayer, Ten Commandment monuments, etc. as an individual or a group, but any fees from work on the case would not be awarded as part of the adujication. Once again, let us slip out of legalese:

What this basicly means is that a school in Deepest Darkest Wherever can have prayer in a public school, put an icon of Jesus Christ on the wall, and hire a religious teacher for “Biblical Literacy classes” — all out of the public coffers — and a parent or group of parents seeking relief must hire their own lawyers or handle the case themselves, or else hope and pray (no pun intended) that a civil liberties organization will take their case absolutely pro bono or at a diminished fee. “Winning” such a case would be simply a ruling from the presiding officer of “Now cut that out! Bad! Bad! Bad school! Bad! Bad!”

The number of such cases taken on by the ACLU would be absolutely cut into a fraction of the present number. To compound matters, school boards have been largely supportive of actions that breach Mr. Jefferson’s “wall.” Right wing organizations, such as the VFW, the AFA, and others relish the thought that the ACLU might be ultimately silenced effectively by this legislation.

This will make relief a privledge of the wealthy or the well-connected alone. This must be condemned by the House and never allowed to reach the Senate. But will it? One has to wonder if the last desperate gasps of the Talibangelists is not now being heard. Will it become absolutely pitch dark before the dawn breaks in the United States? This HJC vote is getting but small press, the small nonprofit NewStandard, excepted. Michelle Chen of NewStandard reports on 12 September 2006:

Groups like the ACLU, which represents plaintiffs in many church-state cases, say the attorney-fee awards in successful cases are necessary so that lawyers can offer their services to individuals without charge. Jeremy Leaming, with American United for Separation of Church and State, acknowledged that the bill could affect the group financially, since it has received court-ordered compensation in past cases it has litigated. Nonetheless, he pointed out that the bill does not propose comparable restrictions on attorney’s fees for individuals or groups that sue to defend religious exercise in government or public settings. The main problem, he argued to TNS, is that the bill’s supporters “don’t particularly like the way a lot of federal courts have ruled on church-state issues… and their intention is to see church-state lawsuits stop.”

We see it in a similar light. We urge all who love the freedom of religion in this country to join with us to decry the HJC vote and to preserve our heritage of Messrs. Jefferson and Madison. Two tiered justice is no justice at all. It is Unamerican, repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, if not the Constitution and precedent themselves, and an agenda attempted to be foisted upon the People by a small group to silence dissent.