Wednesday 23 May 2012

New Ordinance Allows Nativity Scene on Public Property



We were contacted this past December by a Chelsea, MI Council Member who asked us to assist in drafting an ordinance to regulate private use of public space. He contacted us because Chelsea would not allow a live nativity scene on city-leased property during a December festival. Councilman Anderson wanted an ordinance in place to protect such activities. As such, he contacted ACLJ attorneys who were able to provide him with information regarding the First Amendment and the Equal Access Act. 

Specifically, we discussed Lamb’s Chapel, argued by ACLJ Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow, a case in which a unanimous Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires religious groups to be treated equally with other groups that use public facilities. The Court upheld two principles. First, denying religious organizations equal access to, and use of, public facilities for speech activities violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Second, it is not a violation of the Establishment Clause (what some people mistakenly call “separation of church and state”) for a school to treat religious organizations equally with other organizations. These principles apply to all public facilities, not just school facilities, which have been opened for use by community organizations. 

Based on such case law, ACLJ attorneys were able to assist the Council Member in drafting an ordinance that would regulate private use of public space. The outcome was favorable, and we just received word that the drafted ordinance passed unanimously. 

We are pleased with this outcome and will continue working to protect the rights of religious organizations to ensure that they are treated equally with other organizations when public space has been opened for use by community organizations.

Monday 7 May 2012

Jay Sekulow: SCOTUS Supportive of AZ Immigration Law

It was a very good day for the State of Arizona at the U.S. Supreme Court.
During oral arguments before eight Justices (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from this case), it became clear that a majority of the Justices seem to believe that Arizona has a legitimate role in the enforcement of laws designed to protect its citizens and borders.

In the run-up to today’s arguments, there’s been much written and said about how the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional – that a provision that requires state law enforcement officials to verify a person’s legal status when they’re stopped on suspicion of committing a separate offense is somehow discriminatory and unconstitutional.

But at the outset, the Chief Justice asked the Solicitor General if Arizona’s S.B. 1070 involves racial or ethnic profiling. The government repeatedly responded: “No, it does not.” The fact that the government conceded that the law does not involve racial or ethnic profiling is very significant because it undercuts an argument that’s been repeatedly used to challenge the immigration measure.

In fact, there was skepticism from several Justices about the Solicitor General’s argument that it was not appropriate for Arizona to act to protect its citizens and border, especially since the federal government has failed to do so. “You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the government’s attorney. She told him that she was “terribly confused” by his arguments.

In a debate today on FOX News, I told Megyn Kelly that I am optimistic that the Arizona law will be upheld by a majority of the high court.