“I Came, I Saw, I was Offended” - It’s Time to Finish Offended Observer Standing | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

By Geoffrey Surtees1316706705000

Does the ACLU have the right to sue a judge over his display of the Ten Commandments simply because one of its members finds the display offensive? Does a federal court have the constitutional authority to order the removal of the Ten Commandments merely because an ACLU member finds their public display demeaning?

These questions raise the issue of what’s called “offended observer” standing — an issue at stake in our pending Supreme Court petition in ACLU v. DeWeese. Under this theory, a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a challenge to a governmental religious display based on nothing more than the allegation that observation of the display causes offense. Groups like the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation have used this theory to challenge everything from nativity scenes to memorial crosses to Ten Commandments displays. As we wrote in our petition, offended observer standing amounts to little more than “I came, I saw, I was offended.”

The problem with offended observer standing is that it conflicts with a well-entrenched line of Supreme Court decisions. The Court has consistently held that mere ideological disagreement with government action is insufficient to confer standing on the plaintiff or jurisdiction on the court. The reasoning behind this rule is clear: if one could file a federal lawsuit against the government on the grounds of disagreement or offense alone, the courts would be inundated with cases brought by upset and aggrieved citizens. As one federal judge correctly put it, “there would be universal standing: anyone could contest any public policy or action he disliked.” Political and ideological disagreements should be fought out in the legislatures, not the courts.

Not only does common sense require an injury requirement to confer legal standing, so too does the U.S. Constitution. Article III mandates, among other things, that federal courts only rule upon cases or controversies. This means, first and foremost, that the party bringing a case to federal court must be injured in some way. Without an injury, there can be no case; without a case, there can be no decision.

In 1982, the Supreme Court applied the Constitution’s injury requirement in an Establishment Clause case. In Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a church-state separationist group claimed that the federal government’s donation of surplus property to a Christian college violated the Establishment Clause. The Court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing because they suffered no injury. It noted that the “psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees” does not constitute an injury in any constitutional sense.

How is this not a description of the offended observer?

Despite what the Supreme Court held in Valley Forge, most lower courts have by and large ignored it, or distinguished it away to the point of no meaning. In DeWeese, for example, the district court held that the ACLU had standing to sue Judge DeWeese because an ACLU member said he was “personally offended” by the judge’s display. That’s it. There was no allegation that the display directly or indirectly coerced him to think or act in any particular way, or even that the contents of the display conflicted with his own religious beliefs.

It’s time for the Supreme Court to reject clearly and unambiguously the notion that “I came, I saw, I was offended” amounts to an injury in the constitutional sense. The proper venue for persons offended by what they think to be an improper religious display is with city councils, county boards, and state legislatures — not the federal courts.

Next week, the Supreme Court will consider our petition in ACLU v. DeWeese and decide whether to hear the case. We’ll keep you posted.

Moral Relativism on Trial in Ten Commandments Case

By Geoffrey Surtees1313096222000

In light of our filing last week with the U.S. Supreme Court in ACLU v. DeWeese , some comments are in order on why this is both a unique and important case. A little more than six years ago -- in fact, on the same day -- the Supreme Court handed down two decisions involving the public display of...

read more

ACLU Has No Legal Standing in 10 Commandments Case, High Court Should Hear Case

By Jay Sekulow1312302139000

I want to bring you an update on our efforts to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case involving the display of the Ten Commandments, a case I told you about in June . We filed our Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the high Court a couple of months ago. Now, we have filed a reply brief arguing...

read more

Supreme Court Should Take 10 Commandments Case

By Jay Sekulow1309371686000

It's a legal challenge that's been underway for years. And, now, we're asking the Supreme Court of the United States to get involved. We filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the Supreme Court urging the high court to take an Ohio case and overturn a federal appeals court decision that...

read more

Another Major Ten Commandments Victory

By Jay Sekulow1309027423000

I am happy to report that this morning we received an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6 th Circuit in our case, American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky v. Mercer County . Mercer County had a Ten Commandments display that was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union. We were...

read more