The Supreme Court will soon consider whether a city’s sponsorship of a prayer vigil that offended atheists who witnessed it violates the First Amendment.
The case comes as the high court has become increasingly protective in recent years of constitutionally based religious freedoms.
The justices are scheduled to consider the petition in City of Ocala, Florida v. Rojas, court file 22-278, on Feb. 17.
The case goes back to 2014 when Ocala held a public vigil after drive-by shootings in which young children were injured. Community leaders suggested a prayer vigil be conducted to promote public healing, and the local chief of police encouraged residents to attend.
Some local atheists, the respondents in the current appeal, attended the vigil and claimed that by organizing the event, the city had violated the so-called separation of church and state and the Constitution’s establishment clause. The respondents say that the vigil featured religious elements that offended them and made them feel excluded.
“The [respondents] were invited to attend by their own city officials and had an interest in being a part of the community and were concerned about crime. They attended but were unable to participate in any of the activity because it was all prayer.”
They sued in federal district court, which found that at least one of the respondents had “offended observer” standing to bring the lawsuit. The court entered judgment against the city and the chief of police for $1 in damages.
The 11th Circuit remanded the Ocala case to the district court to “give it an opportunity to apply ... the historical practices and understandings standard endorsed” in the new precedent, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.
Abigail Southerland serves as senior litigation counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative nonprofit public interest law firm.
“This is the only area of law in which ‘offended observer’ status has been recognized by lower courts,” Southerland told The Epoch Times.
“But as we argue in our petition, the Supreme Court has indicated that offended observer standing is not sufficient standing to bring an establishment clause case or claim.”
Southerland is cautiously optimistic about whether the court will accept the appeal.
“We can only speculate as to whether they will or not, but we think we’ve presented the strongest argument for the court to take the case.”
It is “very customary for cities to host community prayer vigils in response to tragic events or crime sprees—it happens across the country all the time ... in response to difficult times,” she said.
“I think the trend [of the Supreme Court] to return to an original interpretation of the Constitution, rather than to expand its application, will be helpful, hopefully, to us in this case.”
In August 2022, when the 11th Circuit acted, the American Humanist Association (AHA), which brought the original lawsuit, hailed the circuit court decision.
“The City of Ocala and its police department, as civil servants of the state, should never have exerted their influence upon the citizens they were meant to serve by promoting a singular religion and its practices,” AHA Executive Director Nadya Dutchin said at the time.
“We’re proud to have stood with the concerned citizens of Ocala, trying to preserve their constitutional right to freedom from religion.”
The Epoch Times asked the AHA, if it was optimistic the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the case.
“Regardless of whether we are optimistic, the Supreme Court should decline to take this case as the law in question is well settled,” AHA staff attorney Katie McKerall said by email.
“However, given this Court’s penchant for upending well settled law, especially in the religious liberty context, there is every possibility that they will grant” the petition and agree to hear the case, she said.
If at least four of the nine Supreme Court justices vote on Feb. 17 to hear the case, oral arguments will be scheduled for some point in the future.
