FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. v. Obama

Citation691 F. Supp.2d 890
Decision Date01 March 2010
Docket NumberNo. 08-cv-588-bbc.,08-cv-588-bbc.
PartiesFREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC., Anne Nicol Gaylor, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Dan Barker, Paul Gaylor, Phyllis Rose and Jill Dean, Plaintiffs, v. President Barack OBAMA, White House Press Secretary Robert L. Gibbs and Shirley Dobson, Chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin

Richard L. Bolton, Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field LLP, Madison, WI, for Plaintiffs.

Alan Sears, Benjamin W. Bull, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, AZ, Joel Oster, Kevin Theriot, Alliance Defense Fund, Leawood, KS, Brad P. Rosenberg, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

OPINION and ORDER

BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge.

Under 36 U.S.C. § 119, the first Thursday of every May in the United States is designated as the "National Day of Prayer." The statute directs the President to issue a proclamation to commemorate the day, which President Barack Obama has done, following the precedent of many former Presidents. Defendant Shirley Dobson is the chairperson of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, which is a private organization that sponsors events celebrating the day.

Plaintiff Freedom from Religion Foundation is an organization of nonreligious persons who object to what they view as the government's endorsement and encouragement of prayer. In this case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the foundation and several of its members are challenging the constitutionality of § 119 under the establishment clause. They seek an injunction prohibiting its enforcement. In addition, they want an order prohibiting the President from issuing "prayer proclamations" generally and prohibiting defendant Dobson from acting in concert with public officials in any way that would violate the establishment clause. The parties' cross motions for summary judgment are now before the court. Dkt. ## 79, 82 and 103.1

The threshold issue is standing. This requires the plaintiffs to show that they have suffered a "concrete" injury that is caused by each of the challenged actions and can be remedied through the relief they seek. "The concept of a `concrete' injury is particularly elusive in the Establishment Clause context . . . because that clause is primarily aimed at protecting non-economic interests of a spiritual, as opposed to a physical or pecuniary, nature." Vasquez v. Los Angeles ("LA") County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir.2007).

Although the answer is not free from doubt, I conclude that, under the unique circumstances of this case, plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer statute. The primary injury plaintiffs allege is the feeling of unwelcomeness and exclusion they experience as nonreligious persons because of what they view as a message from the government that it favors Americans who pray. That injury is intangible, but it is no less concrete than the injuries in the many cases in which courts have recognized the standing of persons subjected to unwelcome religious speech. The only difference between those cases and this one is that plaintiffs have not come into physical or visual contact with a religious display. However, that difference has little significance in a case like this one involving a national message intended to reach all Americans. Although plaintiffs do not have to "pass by" the National Day of Prayer, they are confronted with the government's message and affected by it just as strongly as someone who views a religious monument or sits through a "moment of silence," if not more so. To find standing in those cases while denying it in this one would be an exercise in formalism.

With respect to plaintiffs' challenge to "prayer proclamations" issued by the President (other than one required by § 119), none of the plaintiffs has read or heard such a proclamation except when they expressly sought one out. Such a self-inflicted "injury" cannot establish standing. With respect to defendant Dobson, plaintiffs have failed completely to show that any of her actions has injured them.

Accordingly, I will deny defendants' motions for summary judgment and grant plaintiffs' motion with respect to the question of standing on plaintiffs' claim that the National Day of Prayer statute violates the establishment clause. I will grant defendants' motions and deny plaintiffs' on the question whether plaintiff has standing to challenge the constitutionality of presidential prayer proclamations and any actions of defendant Dobson. I will address the merits of plaintiffs' challenge to § 119 in a separate opinion.

From the parties' proposed findings of fact and the record, I find that the following facts are undisputed.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

In 1952, Congress enacted a statute establishing the National Day of Prayer. In 1988, Congress amended the statute so that it specified the day of the year the National Day of Prayer would take place. Under the current version of the statute, "the President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals." 36 U.S.C. § 119. Most presidents since 1952, including President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush, have complied with this statute, issuing proclamations through their press secretaries.

Plaintiff Freedom from Religion Foundation is an organization founded in 1976 in Madison, Wisconsin and devoted to "promoting the constitutional principle of separation of church and state" and "educating the public on matters of nontheism." It publishes the newspaper Freethought Today, which reports on government conduct the foundation opposes as well as the views and activities of its members. Over the years, the foundation has responded to the National Day of Prayer in various ways, including by promoting secular proclamations for public officials to make, contacting public officials about their involvement and encouraging and publicizing efforts to protest the government involvement with the day. The foundation devotes staff time and resources to oppose the National Day of Prayer. Members of the foundation attend events related to the National Day of Prayer in order to monitor or protest them. At least 1500 members have read or seen media coverage of the National Day of Prayer and the presidential proclamations accompanying it.

Plaintiff Annie Laurie Gaylor is a cofounder of the foundation and is now its co-president. She "regularly reports" on the National Day of Prayer, writes press releases and letters of complaint about it and urges members to protest events celebrating the day. The complaints she receives from members about the National Day of Prayer have led her to believe that it creates much controversy and division. She "learned about" the 2008 proclamation from former President Bush by visiting the website of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, which she has "routinely monitored in the spring for many years." She corroborated the information she received using the "White House website." In 2009, she monitored both websites in advance of the proclamation. She learned that President Obama would be issuing a proclamation from "numerous prominent national news stories in the Washington Post and over the wire." She "verified the wording" of the 2009 proclamation on the White House website. She "needed to see what the President was going to be saying because she was suing for it."

Plaintiff Annie Laurie Gaylor "does not believe in a god" and she does not believe in the efficacy of prayer. Members of the foundation share Gaylor's views. On the National Day of Prayer, she believes that the government is encouraging her to pray. She and other foundation members feel "excluded, disenfranchised, affronted, offended and deeply insulted."

Dan Barker is the co-president of the foundation. He "remembers seeing or hearing something on television (probably a news story) in the early 1980s when President Ronald Regan signed one of the NDP proclamations." He has been "watching" the National Day of Prayer "for years" and has "opposed" it publicly in writing. In early 2008, Barker read President Bush's National Day of Prayer proclamation after searching for it on the internet. The proclamation stated that

America trusts in the abiding power of prayer and asks for the wisdom to discern God's will in times of joy and trial. As we observe the National Day of Prayer, we recognize our dependence on the Almighty, we thank him for the many blessings He has bestowed upon us, and we put our country's future in His hands. . . . I ask the citizens of our nation to give thanks . . . for God's continued guidance, comfort and protection.

In May 2009, Barker learned by watching the news on the internet that President Obama had issued a National Day of Prayer proclamation. The President called upon "Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love."

Plaintiff Barker "does not believe in `God' or any god" and he does not pray. On the National Day of Prayer, Barker feels "excluded, like a second-class American."

Plaintiff Anne Nicol Gaylor is the president emeritus and co-founder of the foundation. She learned about the National Day of Prayer from media coverage of it. Other members of the foundation have complained to her about the National Day of Prayer, she has written press releases and letters about it and she has been contacted by the media to comment about it. She learned about the 2008 and 2009 presidential proclamations for the National Day of Prayer from plaintiff Annie Laurie Gaylor. She believes it is "shocking" to have such a day.

Plaintiff Paul Gaylor has been a member of the foundation for 33 years. He "read about" the National Day of Prayer in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Cope v. Kan. State Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • December 2, 2014
    ...that it favors Americans who pray and disfavors plaintiffs' views on religion. Id. at 805 ; Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Obama, 691 F.Supp.2d 890, 894–95, 902–906 (W.D.Wisc.2010), vacated and remanded by 641 F.3d 803 (7th Cir.2011). But the Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that......
  • Freedom From Religion Found. Inc. v. Obama
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • April 14, 2011
    ...defendants—the President and his Press Secretary—moved to dismiss for want of standing. The district judge denied that motion. 691 F.Supp.2d 890 (W.D.Wis.2010). The judge later concluded that both the statute and all proclamations issued under it violate the establishment clause. 705 F.Supp......
  • Lujano v. Town of Cicero
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 5, 2010
    ... ... Supp.2d 876 Lujano alleges that from 2005 until roughly the end of 2006, Dominick and ... Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT