WASHINGTON (ABP) — Some members of Congress want to make it harder for citizens to sue the government over religious-liberty abuses.
If a House panel has its way, groups that win federal cases against the government for violating church-state separation won't be able to reclaim the legal expenses they've incurred.
On a 12-5 vote Sept. 7, the House Judiciary Committee passed the “Public Expression of Religion Act of 2006.” In cases involving the First Amendment's establishment clause, the bill would not allow federal courts to require government entities to reimburse the legal costs of the individual or group that filed the lawsuit.
Supporters say the bill, if passed and signed into law, would keep special-interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union from “abusing the system” when filing challenges to government actions that may endorse religion. Opponents say it would have a chilling effect on the ability of religious minorities to defend their freedoms.
The committee's vote was split down party lines, with all 12 Republicans present supporting the bill and Democrats opposing it.
The establishment clause bars the government from endorsing or inhibiting religious groups or doctrines. Currently, federal judges routinely require the government entity to pay the legal expenses of a plaintiff who successfully asserts an establishment-clause violation.
Without such reimbursements, many church-state separationist groups and other civil-rights groups could not afford to file such lawsuits in the first place.
The American Civil Liberties Union frequently sues government entities for violating the establishment clause. They issued a press release denouncing the House vote.
“[T]he ability to recover attorneys' fees in civil-rights and constitutional cases, including establishment-clause cases, is necessary to help protect the religious freedom of all Americans and to keep religion government-free,” the statement said, noting the fees in such suits often total “tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars.”
“Few citizens can afford to [pay such fees],” it continued. “But more importantly, citizens should not be required to do so where the court finds that the government has violated their rights and engaged in unconstitutional behavior.”
Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.), the bill's chief House sponsor, said the act was necessary to prevent such groups from intimidating governments into agreeing to out-of-court settlements.
“It is outrageous that public officials have been threatened with the prospect of financial ruin merely because they wish to defend their constitutional rights in a court of law,” he said in a statement. “This is a big victory for Americans who care about our rich religious heritage in this country.”
Several religious groups have stated their opposition to the bill, including the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Anti-Defamation League. The American Legion — donor of several Ten Commandments monuments displayed at county courthouses around the nation since the 1950s — is among its main supporters.
Congress, which has just returned from its month-long August recess, has only a few more weeks of legislative business. Around Oct. 1, both chambers will adjourn so members up for re-election in November can return to their districts to campaign. Republican leaders have chosen the period to focus attention on several bills designed to rally support from their base of religious conservatives while postponing stickier issues, such as immigration reform, until after the midterm elections.
According to sources close to the Judiciary Committee, Republican leaders are likely to bring the bill to the House floor as early as the week of Sept. 11.
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has introduced a similar version in the Senate. However, it is unlikely to make it out of that chamber's Judiciary Committee.
The House version of the bill is H.R. 2679. The Senate version is S. 3696.
-30-
Read more: