Star Gets It Wrong On Bosma Prayer Case

The Star is currently running a blatantly inaccurate headline on its website concerning the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision overturning Judge David Hamilton's decision in the Indiana House of Representatives' prayer case. The headline reads: "Court overturns ban on Ind House Prayer." First, no ban was overturned by the court because Judge David Hamilton never banned prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives. He simply said the sectarian prayers delivered day-to-day in the Indiana House, which were shown by the plaintiffs in the case to be largely Christian prayers singing the praises of "Jesus Christ", amounted to the establishment of religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Hamilton emphasized in his opinion, non-sectarian prayers are not a problem. Secondly, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision based solely on the issue of the standing of the plaintiffs. It's decision is not based on the merits of the plaintiffs' complaint.

The 7th Circuit decision relies on recent case law curtailing taxpayer-initiated lawsuits on standing grounds. Under the rule enunciated in the recent Supreme Court decision in Hein, which involved a taxpayer challenge to President Bush's faith-based programs, federal taxpayers are not permitted to lodge constitutional challenges to legislative appropriations, except in the narrow circumstance where there is an established link between the taxpayer's status and the type of legislative enactment being challenged, and that link must be a direct one. In the Indiana prayer case, the Court noted the legislative prayers as carried out are not mandated by statute but rather as a matter of tradition. The Court further pointed out that there are minimal public funds spent on legislative prayers and the plaintiffs are unable to point to any specific public appropriation funding them. "The plaintiffs have not tied their status as taxpayers to the House’s allegedly unconstitutional practice of regularly offering a sectarian prayer," the Court writes. "They have not shown that the legislature has extracted from them tax dollars for the establishment and implementation of a program that violates the Establishment Clause." The Court concluded, "We are well aware of the time and energy that the parties and the district court have expended on the merits of this matter." It continued, "However, '[i]f a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so.'"

It looks like the plaintiffs in this case would have been able to overcome the standing issue if they had simply stuck to having the House's only Jewish member, Rep. David Orentlicher (D-Indianapolis) as the principle plaintiff rather than involving taxpayers in the lawsuit. It is important to remember that Brian Bosma did not win this case on the merits. This is strictly a procedural decision today which in no way decides whether it is appropriate for the Indiana House of Representatives to conduct Christian-only prayers as a matter of course.