Chief Justice John Roberts was the only dissenter in the U.S Supreme Court’s most recent ruling favoring a couple of Christian students who challenged their university for restricting when, where, and how they could speak about their faith and disseminate materials on campus.
Today's 8-1 decision in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski marks the first time Chief Justice John Roberts has ever been the sole dissenting justice during his entire tenure. https://t.co/6Ux9HvXiDL
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 8, 2021
Uzuegbunam et al. v. Preczewski et al. first materialized after Chike Uzuegbunam, a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, was stopped by campus police for handing out religious materials on campus, a reported violation of the school’s “Freedom of Expression Policy,” which limited distributions and other expressions to free speech zones only with permission from the administration. Even after Uzuegbunam moved to the designated areas with permission, however, campus police attempted to stop him from speaking and handing out religious literature, prompting him and another student, Joseph Bradford, to take legal action against the university for violating their First and 14th Amendment rights and seek nominal damages. --->READ MORE HERE
 |
| Jonathan Ernst/Reuters |
What could be more American than a religious-free-speech lawsuit with the name Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski? At issue in the case is state-funded Georgia Gwinnett College’s “free speech zone” policy, which Stanley Kurtz has aptly summarized elsewhere on this site:
Georgia Gwinnett’s two tiny speech zones occupy less than 0.0015 percent of the campus, and are open only 18 hours a week. If you want to speak in public or leaflet about politics or religion anywhere on campus on a Friday, for example, it had better be in those tiny zones between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. or you’re out of luck — and even then you’ll have to get authorization three business days in advance.
Student Chike Uzuegbunam, an Evangelical Christian, was told that if he wanted to evangelize his faith to his fellow students, he would have to apply three days in advance for a permit, and then confine his activities to one of the two free-speech zones. After receiving the permit, he was told by campus cops that he could not share his faith even in one of the speech zones, because doing so violated a campus ban on “disturb[ing] the peace and/or comfort of person(s).” (Of course, these days, almost any opinion, especially on matters of faith, will make someone on campus uncomfortable.) So he sued, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and supported by Jeff Sessions and the Trump Justice Department. In response, the college changed the policy and tried to get the lawsuit dismissed as moot. Eventually, the issue reached the Supreme Court. And today, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a clear victory for the plaintiffs.
A bit of background: Courts of law do not exist to issue pronouncements in the abstract about constitutional rights and wrongs; federal courts are restricted to deciding “cases or controversies” in which some particular person, entity, or group has suffered a particular injury and that injury can be relieved by the judiciary. Standing to sue is commonly described as having three elements: (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability. Injury means that the plaintiff has suffered a concrete, proven harm. Traceability means that the plaintiff’s injury can fairly be said to have been caused by the defendant’s acts. Redressability means that the kind of relief the plaintiff seeks — e.g. money, an injunction, a declaratory judgment — is within the court’s power to provide. --->READ MORE HEREFollow links below to related stories:
John Roberts issues lone dissent in Supreme Court campus free speech case
Supreme Court Sides With Christian Student In College Free Speech Case
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
No comments:
Post a Comment