Websites, the Establishment Clause, and Standing
Christopher Lund
Lund at mc.edu
Tue Oct 7 09:02:44 PDT 2008
The Ninth Circuit recently handed down an interesting decision regarding passive displays and standing. The plaintiff objected to a website run by the University of California. The website discussed evolution, but it also discussed religion as it relates to evolution * in part, it suggested that evolution and religion were compatible. (Apparently, there was a cute cartoon with a smiling scientist in a lab coat holding a fossil shaking hands with a smiling person in a clerical collar holding a book with a cross.) Anyway, the plaintiff objected to that.
But the Court didn't get to the constitutional issue * it dismissed the case on standing grounds. The Court relied heavily on Valley Forge, calling this a generalized grievance. That makes sense * everyone with Internet access has the same claim to standing as the plaintiffs here; anyone could look up the website and be offended, and sue. And there is no reason why a plaintiff has to keep coming across the material on the government's website. It's not like those cases where a plaintiff has to keep coming across the Ten Commandments display because it's on his way to work. Websites are easily avoided * just don't go there. But does that mean that there is virtually never standing to bring EC challenges to stuff on government websites? (Apart from situations, perhaps, where a student has to visit a government website for class, or an employee has to visit one for work?)
Thoughts? Has this type of case ever happened before?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0615771p.pdf
______________________
Christopher C. Lund
Assistant Professor of Law
Mississippi College School of Law
151 E. Griffith St.
Jackson, MS 39201
(601) 925-7141 (office)
(601) 925-7113 (fax)
Papers: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20081007/95d06858/attachment.htm
More information about the Religionlaw
mailing list