In a decision issued late Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John Bates rejected atheist Michael Newdow's legal challenge to ban prayer at the Jan. 20 Presidential inauguration.
The American Center for Law and Justice, specializing in constitutional law, said today it is pleased the court upheld prayer at the inauguration. Newdow is expected to file an emergency appeal with a federal appeals court and the ACLJ is preparing legal briefs to file at the appellate level.
"We're pleased that the court made the appropriate determination in rejecting Newdow's argument and clearing the way for prayer to be offered at the Presidential inauguration continuing a time-honored tradition," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which has challenged Newdow's lawsuits in the past. "Michael Newdow apparently will continue his legal quest to remove prayer from the ceremony, but we are confident this flawed legal challenge will fail in the appeals process."
Judge Bates, in rejecting Newdow's legal challenge, said "there is a strong argument, that at this late date, the public interest would best be served by allowing the 2005 Inauguration ceremony to proceed on January 20 as planned."
The court continued: "That would be consistent with the inclusion of clergy prayer in all Presidential inaugurations since 1937, and with the inclusion of religious prayer or reference in every inauguration commencing with the first inauguration of President Washington in 1789. To do otherwise, moreover, would at this eleventh hour cause considerable disruption in a significant, carefully-planned, national event, requiring programming and other adjustments. The material change requested by Newdow in an accepted and well-established historical pattern of short prayers or religious references during Presidential inaugurations, based on this last-minute challenge, is not likely to serve the public interest, particularly where Newdow's ability to proceed with this action remains in doubt and there is no clear evidence of impermissible sectarian proselytizing."
Newdow has indicated that he plans to appeal today's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking emergency relief. The ACLJ, which filed an amicus brief with the federal district court in support of the Department of Justice's position defending the constitutionality of inaugural prayer, plans to file a brief in support of the inaugural prayer at the appeals court.
In its brief filed at the district court, the ACLJ contended the constitutionality of the inaugural prayer is settled law with the Supreme Court in 1983 concluding in its decision in Marsh v. Chambers that the "opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country." The high court also noted that the First Congress "did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's official seal of approval on one religious view."
Last year, the ACLJ filed a brief at the Supreme Court opposing Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, which the high court rejected. Newdow has filed a new lawsuit once again challenging the Pledge and the ACLJ will again file briefs opposing that challenge.
The American Center for Law and Justice is based in Washington, D.C. and is online at www.aclj.org.
