Lawsuit filed against USAFA Superintendent

[Christcorp]

Before everyone starts celebrating, I think you would be wise to understand what the judge actually ruled upon.

The judge dismissed the suit because of the plaintiff's "lack of standing."

Standing

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court
sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation
in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the
constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by
the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the
case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional,
there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue
unless it has automatic standing by action of law.​

Without a valid claim of damage, Arguello said she had no jurisdiction on the case.

"The plaintiff has not met his burden that he will actually or imminently suffer the injury he fears," Arguello said.

Exactly the way I believe it should be. The academy showed that the assembly was a multi-denominational religious gathering. It wasn't going to be be condoning a particular faith. That attendance was totally voluntary. And there was not threat or retribution if someone didn't attend. The plaintiff on the other hand had no proof that they would be penalized if they didn't attend. They had no proof that it was going to hurt their career. Basically, it was accusations that had no proof. The Judge did exactly what they should do. Tell a person that just because they don't like something, and don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed. And a person/group can not be punished or have their rights restricted, because of something you think they MIGHT do.

Now; if after the luncheon, if anyone who didn't attend, can show proof that they and/or their career is being discriminated upon, I will be the first to support their lawsuit. Unfortunately, this lawsuit was all about what "Might" or "Could" happen. Unless you can prove imminent personal danger, you can't punish someone or restrict their rights, on what they "Might" do.

 

[gotaplay2]

Exactly the way I believe it should be. The academy showed that the assembly was a multi-denominational religious gathering. It wasn't going to be be condoning a particular faith. That attendance was totally voluntary. And there was not threat or retribution if someone didn't attend. The plaintiff on the other hand had no proof that they would be penalized if they didn't attend. They had no proof that it was going to hurt their career. Basically, it was accusations that had no proof. The Judge did exactly what they should do. Tell a person that just because they don't like something, and don't agree with it, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed. And a person/group can not be punished or have their rights restricted, because of something you think they MIGHT do.

Now; if after the luncheon, if anyone who didn't attend, can show proof that they and/or their career is being discriminated upon, I will be the first to support their lawsuit. Unfortunately, this lawsuit was all about what "Might" or "Could" happen. Unless you can prove imminent personal danger, you can't punish someone or restrict their rights, on what they "Might" do.

Freedom for ALL. Sounds like America's still alive and kicking...

 

[raimius]

I would have prefered to see this thrown out on its merit, but this dismissal isn't something I'll complain about.

 

[Luigi59]

The academy showed that the assembly was a multi-denominational religious gathering.

Ummm, I don't think you understand the ruling at all. Go back and read the definition of "standing."

The Judge did not rule on the merits of the case at all.

You've missed this completely.

I would have prefered to see this thrown out on its merit,

I agree, a ruling on the merits (either way) would have settled this. Dismissing it for lack of standing (to me) is a cop out and leaves the door wide open for the suit to be brought again.

 

[Christcorp]

Luigi; I do understand it. The plaintiff could not show any harm to themselves by this assembly happening. Had the luncheon been a single denomination, it would have been more conceivable to be able to show probable discrimination or harm for someone. But by the academy demonstrating it was multi-denominational, and the academy's words that it was strictly a voluntary gathering, there was no part of the luncheon that is causing harm personally or professionally. Therefor, the plaintiffs didn't have cause.

 

[sprog]

There is no standing because the plaintiffs did not show that they would suffer "injury-in-fact" by not attending the prayer luncheon. That is, they couldn't show that the event was mandatory or that they would face retribution for not attending.

You can't challenge the constitutionality of something unless you can show that you've been harmed or will be harmed imminently. By dismissing the case, the Judge said that the plaintiffs didn't show that they would be harmed.

It isn't enough to say "I don't like this," and status as a taxpayer isn't enough. You have to show that you've been actually harmed or will be.

 

[Luigi59]

Therefor, the plaintiffs didn't have cause.

No, the plaintiffs didn't have standing.

This case is over, but by failing to rule on the merits the judge leaves the door wide open for another suit.

 

[luckymacy]

There is no standing because the plaintiffs did not show that they would suffer "injury-in-fact" by not attending the prayer luncheon. That is, they couldn't show that the event was mandatory or that they would face retribution for not attending.

You can't challenge the constitutionality of something unless you can show that you've been harmed or will be harmed imminently. By dismissing the case, the Judge said that the plaintiffs didn't show that they would be harmed.

It isn't enough to say "I don't like this," and status as a taxpayer isn't enough. You have to show that you've been actually harmed or will be.

Yeah, this is a good sign. Shows the judge applied a litmus test to determine if even worthy of wasting more taxpayer money on and the answer is an emphatic no, it has no merit as presented before the court. That's what we need to get back to, judges who apply the law as written, not try to circumvent them for their own agenda. Judge gets a

 

[firmament]

"There seems to be a huge misconception about our nation's history and Constitution. The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Separation of church and state is not found in the Constitution, but was found in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, who was addressing the concerns of a citizen who was worried about the naming of a national religion."

This was also well said.

 

[sprog]

it has no merit as presented before the court.

The Court did not address the merits of the case. It did not say whether the prayer luncheon violates the Establishment Clause. The case was dismissed because the plaintiffs could not show that they have suffered or will suffer any harm because of the government action. They have no standing to sue.

 

[luckymacy]

The Court did not address the merits of the case. It did not say whether the prayer luncheon violates the Establishment Clause. The case was dismissed because the plaintiffs could not show that they have or will suffer any harm because of the government action. They have no standing to sue.

to me, a layman, same as merit.

 

[Pima]

You all do realize that this thread is no longer about the impact of the lawsuit on the AFA, but semantics, right?



What is the exact point to keep this thread alive? Merit Vs Standing, and who gets the difference of which means what in he legal world?

I can get it going on if someone can bring it to how they could face the lawsuit again for a member who was not promoted (with proof) over someone else due to their religious beliefs. Otherwise, it is just now a thread arguing about the legal terms, and this has no impact for any candidate, cadet or military member.

 

[patentesq]

No, the plaintiffs didn't have standing.

This case is over, but by failing to rule on the merits the judge leaves the door wide open for another suit.

I don't think this case is over, regrettably. The plaintiffs are asserting that they THEMSELVES will suffer harm. This is not a situation where parents are asserting rights on behalf of their children or USAFA faculty members are asserting rights on behalf of cadets. If you take the injuries alleged in the complaint as true (which is what is done at this point), I think they have made a case for standing.

All the issues about coercion, etc. go to the merits, not to the preliminary issue of constitutional standing.

There will likely be an appeal in this case. And, unfortunately, this case will linger on long after the event and could become the next seminal case on constitutional standing at the U.S. Supreme Court (my assumption is that this case is really being pushed by constitutional watchdogs, not the USAFA faculty members, so the possibility of voluntary dismissal and everyone simply "getting on with their lives" may not happen).

I agree with everyone who said the case should have been handled on the merits. The case would be over (at least at the district court level). But now we have a distracting issue of standing that could turn this case into the Energizer Bunny (the ACLU and all the other constitutional watch dogs will now get more involved). The issue of standing is important for the ACLU and others because it not only affects this case, but also the tons of cases in other contexts (not just religion) that are affected by the ruling on constitutional standing. What a mess!

And only after the issue of constitutional standing is resolved will the court turn to the merits (assuming SCOTUS says the alleged injury IN THE COMPLAINT is sufficient).

 

[Luigi59]

The Court did not address the merits of the case. It did not say whether the prayer luncheon violates the Establishment Clause. The case was dismissed because the plaintiffs could not show that they have suffered or will suffer any harm because of the government action. They have no standing to sue.

Exactly, this point seems to continue to go right over most people's heads.

You all do realize that this thread is no longer about the impact of the lawsuit on the AFA, but semantics, right?

No, it's about understanding exactly what the judge ruled on.

 

[sprog]

You all do realize that this thread is no longer about the impact of the lawsuit on the AFA, but semantics, right?

The difference between a dismissal due to a lack of standing and a judgment on the merits is not semantic. A dismissal does not affect the law in that district with respect to the Establishment Clause issue, while a judgment on the merits becomes precedential.

If the Court had ruled that the prayer luncheon does not violate the Establishment Clause, that case becomes binding authority for subsequent litigation on the EC in that district (stare decisis). The dismissal does not have that impact with respect to the merits of the claim.

As patenesq points out, it does affect how standing is viewed in that district. It could, if it ends up at the Supreme Court, potentially be a new development with respect to how standing to sue on constitutional matters is gained/denied.

 

[Pima]

It could, if it ends up at the Supreme Court, potentially be a new development with respect to how standing to sue on constitutional matters is gained/denied.

I agree, but the earlier posts were not about it moving up to a new level it and how it would impact the AFA or the military.

I was just stating IMPO, people seem to be discussing semantics re: the case. It appeared as everyone was arguing about Merit V Standing. They were not arguing how this decision could lead to the Supreme Court.

My point was and is arguing over Merit V Standing and what the judgement stated is spinning wheels...move on. Ruling is in, what's the next step?

Now that being stated, arguing how this may not end here depending on the plaintiff, and the ruling can impact the future IMPO is worth the debate.

Not everyone here has a law degree. However, as lucky stated for a layman it was all equal.

Again, ask yourself if the conversation was moving forward regarding the case, or was it just spinning wheels explaining Merit V Standing. Nobody here was discussing the next step of the plaintiff, they were only arguing legal terms.

That is why I did

 

[patentesq]

The problem with cases like this is that they start to get legs of their own. If this case does go up, it will really be a fight between the ACLU and the Department of Justice (NOT a fight between USAFA and the individual faculty members). The district court here appears to have set the stage for that to happen.

Unfortunately, the image of USAFA will suffer in this process. These cases gain increasing public attention the higher the case is escalated in the legal system. The headlines will say "USAFA accused of illegal constitutional violation!" when this fight is really now about an esoteric legal point (albeit an important one) that has absolutely nothing really to do with USAFA's event. And if the appeals court ultimately reverses the district court on the issue of constitutional standing, the public will perceive that the claims against USAFA have merit -- WHEN THE MERITS HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN ADDRESSED YET.

It's cases like this that legitimize lawyer bashing. And I'm a bit embarrassed by it sometimes as a member of the profession. But that's our system in the United States, and it has served us well for over 200 years. It is always better to have our disputes aired publicly than to have secret star chambers handle disputes.

 

[Pima]

That is the problem...no offense Patent, but sometimes the plaintiff is puffed up by a lawyer saying "you have a case", and the question is left to be asked, did they take the case for them and their principal or you and the notoriety/image?

I agree the legal system has worked for the past 200 yrs, however, I believe you would agree that just like any aspect of the real world, there are always going to be who care more about what's in it for me?

I have to say this:

The thing that bothered me the most about this lawsuit was nothing more than the fact that it was "about me".

I guess they missed that lesson on there is NO ME in serving. It is all about everyone.

The other thing that bothers me, nobody is thinking about the impact this lawsuit has on these 4 cadets. Let's be real, it took alot for them to do this, and anyone who believes they have not been "outed" in the corps should take me up on a piece of land I own in FL, it is a little wet, but you know it is still a good buy...blatant hint...swamps!

These cadets probably now live as outcasts because of the lawsuit. They created the self fulfilling prophecy of how their religious beliefs impacted their military career.

The only question for the court is:

Did they cause this fear of career punishment to them by bringing the lawsuit? Of course that gives them a whole new legal world to sue the AFA over.

 

[Luigi59]

The other thing that bothers me, nobody is thinking about the impact this lawsuit has on these 4 cadets. Let's be real, it took alot for them to do this, and anyone who believes they have not been "outed" in the corps should take me up on a piece of land I own in FL, it is a little wet, but you know it is still a good buy...blatant hint...swamps!

These cadets probably now live as outcasts because of the lawsuit. They created the self fulfilling prophecy of how their religious beliefs impacted their military career.

What cadets?

The lawsuit plaintiffs never included any cadets, who are you referring to?

 

[sprog]

That is the problem...no offense Patent, but sometimes the plaintiff is puffed up by a lawyer saying "you have a case", and the question is left to be asked, did they take the case for them and their principal or you and the notoriety/image?

.

This is a little off the topic, but I think I need to respond.

In answer to your question, I have another question to give: Do those two things have to be mutually exclusive? I think the answer is no.

The person who came into the attorney's office obviously feels that he has been wronged, which is how he becomes a plaintiff. The lawyer is a professional who will help the client, and as he has a business, clearly wants to increase the visability of his practice. That way, he will get more business. It's win-win (in this case, at the initial stage, it's lose-lose...but I don't think this one is over yet).

The zealous representation of a client is an ethical obligation for an attorney. It usually is mutually beneficial. Are there times when unethical lawyers charge people for poor services? Yes. Are there unethical lawyers who take a case that is lacking in merit? Yes. These are the ones you read about in the back of the monthly legal magazine the Bar publishes. That is, they are the ones who have been subject to discipline. As tempting as it can be, I wouldn't malign the entire profession because of the public missteps of a few of us. I know some personal injury lawyers who represent clients who have been seriously injured, and they care very much for the well-being of their clients. Sure, they will earn a portion of any settlement/judgment, but that doesn't mean they chase ambulances.

It is a common perception that attorneys are all devious and undermining. I think it stems from the adversarial nature of the profession. I think, though, that once you need an attorney, you see what a true ally he or she is.