House Votes to Bar Federal Courts from Hearing Pledge of Allegiance Cases; ACLU Says Bill Compromises Independent Judiciary (7/19/2006)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@dcaclu.org
WASHINGTON – The American Civil
Liberties Union expressed its strong disapproval as the House passed a
controversial measure to deny judicial review on certain First Amendment issues.
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 America’s independent judiciary and would jeopardize access
to fair and impartial courts. It
passed the House on a vote of 260 to 167.
“Today the House said that the
courthouse doors should be closed on certain First Amendment issues,” said
Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The recent string of politically
motivated efforts to interfere with our independent judiciary flies in the face
of our nation’s long-established system of checks and balances. Our federal judiciary must remain an
equal branch of government. It must
not be forced into subservience to our legislative and executive
branches.”
The bill, H.R. 2389, would bar all
federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing cases involving the
Pledge of Allegiance. While supporters argue the proposal is an appropriate
response to potential court decisions 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 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals 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 becomes law.
Passage of any such bill, 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 federal courts would force plaintiffs to raise federal claims
in state courts, which may lack expertise and independent safeguards provided to
federal judges under Article III of the Constitution.
“This bill would effectively deny
access to all federal courts to religious minorities, parents, schoolchildren
and others who seek to have their religious and free speech claims heard,” said
Terri Ann Schroeder, an ACLU Senior Lobbyist. “The purpose of an independent judiciary
is to have it remain free from intimidation and outside influence. It is very unlikely that our founding
fathers ever envisioned a system of checks and balances that could be so easily
upset any time the Congress disagrees with the courts or finds it politically
expedient to limit their independent authority.”
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
|