Feature Story from civilrights.org
Lauren Marsh
September 28, 2006
A new House bill could greatly undermine the constitutional firewall between religion and government, according to civil rights groups.
Congress is currently considering H.R. 2679, the "Veterans' Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006." This bill aims to prevent parties that bring up cases under the Establishment Clause from being awarded attorney's fees, making such cases less likely.
Anyone winning a case involving a constitutional rights violation can normally be awarded attorney's fees, on top of any damages, to cover the cost of hiring a lawyer. By targeting the Establishment Clause, which protects against government sponsorship of religion, observers argue that this bill deems it less important than any other constitutionally-protected right.
A number of civil rights groups have openly opposed this bill because of the discretion it gives the government in terms of promoting or sponsoring one religion over another. Michael Lieberman of the Anti-Defamation League states, "This unnecessary and unwise bill is an attack against religious liberty because it unfairly limits challenges to enforce the First Amendment's prohibition against government sponsorship of religion."
Removing reimbursement for lawyer's fees, which sometimes amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, will make it more difficult for individuals who believe their constitutional rights have been violated to pursue legal remedies.
With the passage of this bill, "It would become far easier for government officials to engage in illegal religious coercion of public school students or in blatant discrimination against particular religions," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, in a
September 18 letter to the House.
Because many Establishment Clause cases brought before the Supreme Court involve state promotion of Christianity specifically, religious minority groups are especially concerned about the bill's impact. Opponents also worry about the potential snowball effect it could have on the protection of other civil rights: if passed, civil rights groups say, it could set a precedent for restricting lawsuits affecting other constitutionally-protected rights in a similar manner.
"Other fundamental rights might not be far behind once Congress opens the door to picking and choosing which constitutional rights it wants to protect and which ones it wants to disfavor," the groups wrote in a
September 14 letter signed by over 25 national groups.
