On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute to Appeal District Court Ruling Dismissing Free Speech Lawsuit Over City Council Member's Right to Pray According to Conscience
RICHMOND, Va. -- Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have announced their intention to appeal the dismissal of a First Amendment lawsuit over a prayer policy that discriminates against city council member Hashmel Turner because of his Christian beliefs and prevents him from praying at council meetings according to his conscience and religious beliefs. In filing suit against the city of Fredericksburg, Institute attorneys charged that the City Council's policy prohibiting sectarian prayers at the start of council meetings violates Turner's constitutional rights to free speech, to freely exercise his religious beliefs and to equal protection of the law. In granting the City of Fredericksburg's motion for summary judgment in the case, Judge James R. Spencer of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the City Council's policy is permissible under the Constitution and does not violate Turner's rights.
"We knew from the beginning that this case would have to work its way through the court system. Cases of great constitutional importance always face uphill battles," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "When we won our Supreme Court victory in the Good News Club case, we did so after having lost at all levels of the court system except the Supreme Court."
There has been increasing confusion over the issue of prayer and/or invocations at City Council meetings since the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its 2004 decision in Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, South Carolina, in which the court held that Town Council members in Great Falls violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by engaging in prayers that contained explicit references to a deity of one specific faith. A subsequent ruling in Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors added to the confusion when the court rejected a challenge to a county board's practice of opening board public meetings with a prayer.
For years, the Fredericksburg City Council has allowed its council members on a rotating basis to open meetings with a prayer without placing any restrictions on the nature of that prayer. On those occasions when it has been his turn to offer a prayer, city councilman Hashmel Turner, in keeping with his Christian beliefs, has ended his prayers by briefly invoking the name of Jesus Christ.
However, on two separate occasions over the past several years, the Virginia ACLU raised objections to Turner's prayers and threatened to sue the City for allowing the sectarian prayers. The ACLU further demanded that the City Council take official action to prevent Turner from offering a prayer according to his religious beliefs and conscience. Turner refused to compromise his religious beliefs by allowing others to dictate how he prays. On November 8, 2005, the Fredericksburg City Council acceded to the ACLU's demands and adopted a prayer policy that could make Turner's sectarian prayers "disorderly conduct," subjecting him to punishment and fines.
In filing suit against the City of Fredericksburg's City Council for its discriminatory policy, Institute attorneys asked the court to declare that the Council's prayer policy is an unconstitutional violation of Turner's free speech rights and allow Turner to pray in accordance with his conscience and his religious beliefs. The Fredericksburg City Council's policy prohibiting sectarian prayers was adopted after the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia threatened them with a lawsuit if they did not take steps to pressure or force Turner to stop praying in Jesus Christ's name.
