FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcacluorg
WASHINGTON - As the House Judiciary Committee met to consider a controversial
measure to deny access to the courts on certain first amendment issues, the
American Civil Liberties Union today urged lawmakers to reject this deeply
misguided and unconstitutional proposal. The bill, H.R. 2389, or the "Pledge
Protection Act of 2005," would strip jurisdiction from all federal courts,
including the Supreme Court, in any First Amendment case involving the Pledge of
Allegiance. It is the latest of several similar politically motivated measures
that would interfere with our independent judiciary and that would jeopardize
American’s access to fair and impartial courts.
"This bill says the federal judiciary should not be a co-equal branch of the
government," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington
Legislative Office. "The role of an fair and impartial federal judiciary is
crucial in our time-honored system of checks and balances. We urge the committee
to reject this misguided proposal."
The bill, H.R. 2389, the "Pledge Protection Act of 2005," would bar all
federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing cases involving the
Pledge of Allegiance. If enacted, the measure would effectively close federal
courthouse doors to religious minorities, parents, schoolchildren and others who
seek to have their religious and free speech claims heard before the federal
courts. The House adopted a similar version in 2004, but the Senate did not take
action.
While politicians who support the bill argue the proposal is an appropriate
response to potential court decisions that they might dislike concerning the
words "under God" in the Pledge, the ACLU warned that the impact of the bill
would be far-reaching. All federal courts would be barred from considering
all constitutional claims related to the pledge. In 2004, the Third
Circuit held that a Pennsylvania law mandating recitation of the Pledge violated
the Constitution because it violated the free speech rights of the students.
Such cases could not be heard if H.R. 2389 were to become law.
The ACLU also pointed to a growing trend by some members of Congress to push
similar measures. Similar proposals seek to restrict the ability of the courts
to review cases considering the legal definition of marriage and public display
of the Ten Commandments.
Passage of any of these measures, the ACLU said, would establish a dangerous
precedent in which Congress responds to court decisions it disagrees with by
attempting to restrict the courts’ jurisdiction. Furthermore, denying access to
the federal courts would force plaintiffs to raise federal claims and concerns
in state courts, which may lack expertise and independent safeguards provided to
federal judges under Article III of the Constitution.
"Closing the doors of federal courthouses on issues that some lawmakers
disagree with strikes at the very purpose of the federal courts as envisioned by
the Founding Fathers," said Terri Ann Schroeder, an ACLU Senior Lobbyist. "They
saw a need for neutral arbiter that would be the final authority in determining
the constitutionality of the laws that Congress passed. We urge Congress to
respect that authority. Our Federal Courts need to be accountable to the
Constitution and the law not to the political whims of Congress."
The ACLU’s letter on H.R. 2389, the "Pledge Protection Act of 2005," can be
found at: www.aclu.org/religion/gen/25803leg20060606.html
