Victory for a Judge and for California Home Schoolers

 

Today we are pleased to announce that a U.S. District Court sitting in Cleveland has formally dismissed a motion brought by the ACLU of Ohio to hold in contempt of court Richland County Judge James DeWeese for displaying a poster entitled Philosophies of Law in Conflict in his Mansfield courtroom.

 

The ACLU charged that Judge DeWeese's display of the poster which graphically compares and contrasts the Ten Commandments with Seven Humanist Principles violated a 2002 injunction barring him from displaying a poster consisting solely of the Ten Commandments under the caption Rule of Law.  In its motion to hold Judge DeWeese in contempt, the ACLU claimed that Judge DeWeese was in public defiance of the previous court order and, by his actions, was undermining the administration of justice.

 

But U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen O'Malley, the same judge who issued the 2002 injunction, disagreed.  In an order dated August 8, 2008, Judge O'Malley held that Judge DeWeese is not in contempt of the prior order and further described the ACLU's attempt to use the 2002 injunction in this fashion as misplaced. The court noted that the current poster is significantly changed from the one ruled on in 2002, with the two contrasting sets of principles accompanied by a lengthy commentary written by Judge DeWeese in which he discusses the differences between a legal philosophy based on moral absolutes and one based on moral relatives.  Judge O'Malley concluded that the Court can find no principled basis upon which to find that, or even fully consider whether, the new display is constitutionally impermissible.

 

ACLJ Senior Counsel Francis J. Manion, who represented Judge DeWeese in opposing the ACLU's charge, commented:  It is truly unfortunate that the ACLU apparently has nothing better to do than to file baseless charges against a dedicated public servant like Judge DeWeese.  A first year law student looking at the facts and law of this case could have told the ACLU that there never was a legal basis for this ridiculous contempt charge. We're pleased that the Court acted expeditiously in tossing out this latest gambit in the ACLU's ongoing harassment of Judge DeWeese.

 

It was clear from the start of this latest episode in the ACLU's harassment of Judge DeWeese that the ACLU was choosing to ignore current law regarding public displays that include the Decalogue in an educational or historical setting.  The U.S. Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear in cases brought by the ACLU itself that government officials are permitted to discuss, acknowledge and display the Ten Commandments in a context that underscores the role played by the Decalogue in history, civilization or ethics.  Stone. v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980).  Any reasonable person can see that this is precisely what Judge DeWeese's current display does.

 

IN ANOTHER VICTORY last Friday, we were pleased that a California appeals court overturned a previous decision and cleared the way for parents to homeschool their children.  Were pleased the appeals court recognized the rights of parents to provide education for their children.  This decision reaffirms the constitutional right thats afforded to parents in directing the education of their children.  Its an important victory for families who cherish the freedom to ensure that their children receive a high quality education that is inherent in homeschooling.

 

The 2nd Appellate District in Los Angeles ruled that state law does permit home-schooling as a species of private school education and concluded home schools may constitute private schools.  The court said:  Parents possess a constitutional liberty interest in directing the education of their children, but the right must yield to state interests in certain circumstances.  To read the appeals court decision, click here. 

 

We filed a friend-of-the-court brief in May urging the appeals court to protect the right to homeschool and argued that the right of parents to homeschool their children is derived from both the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.  To read our brief, just click here.