Supreme Court won't review ruling that Metro can ban religious advertising
Source: Washington Post
Courts & Law
Supreme Court won't review ruling that Metro can ban religious advertising
By Robert Barnes
April 6, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. EDT
The Supreme Court will not take up a lower court's decision that Washington's Metro system did not violate the First Amendment by banning religious advertising.
The court on Monday passed on reviewing a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that upheld the ban on religious messages on buses and trains and in stations as lawful and free from discrimination.
Two justices said the lower-court decision was wrong. But because Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was recused after earlier work on the case, "it makes a poor candidate for our review," wrote Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Nonetheless, he wrote, "The First Amendment requires governments to protect religious viewpoints, not single them out for silencing."
The WMATA system was sued by the Archdiocese of Washington for rejecting a proposed advertisement around Christmas 2017. The planned "Find the Perfect Gift" ads featured a biblical Christmas scene and a link to a website that encouraged people to attend Mass or donate to a Catholic charitable group.
{snip}
The case is Archdiocese of Washington v. WMATA. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1455_9h68.pdf
Ann E. Marimow contributed to this story.
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow https://twitter.com/scotusreporter
Read more:
Link to tweet
You'd think that in DC, of all places, anything would go. I'm pretty sure I could handle religious advertising, and I think my fellow passengers -- back when I had fellow passengers -- could handle this too.
Hat tip, Joe.My.God:
SCOTUS: No Religious Ads On DC's Metro System
April 6, 2020
https://www.joemygod.com/2020/04/scotus-no-religious-ads-on-dcs-metro-system/
-- -- -- -- --
Supreme Court won't review ruling that Metro can ban religious advertising
Link to tweet
= new reply since forum marked as read
In one of those "only in DC" twists, both sides had former solicitors general of the United States as counsel. Paul Clement, counsel for the Archdiocese of Washington, is a Nirvana fan.
Metro can ban all religious ads on buses and trains, court rules
The ad that prompted the legal challenge from the Archdiocese of Washington. (Archdiocese of Washington)
By Ann E. Marimow
July 31, 2018 at 2:50 p.m. EDT
The Washington region’s transit system can bar religious messages on its buses and trains and in its stations, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday as it upheld Metro’s policy prohibiting issue-oriented advertisements.
The ruling in Metro’s favor from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came in response to a lawsuit from the Archdiocese of Washington, which said the transit system’s policy had gone too far in rejecting its religious-themed ad campaign.
{snip}
In December, the federal judge rejected the request for a preliminary injunction.
On appeal, lawyers for the archdiocese, including former solicitor general Paul D. Clement, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the policy violates the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The archdiocese also had the support of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The Justice Department had argued that the policy was applied inconsistently.
Metro’s outside counsel, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., another former solicitor general, told the court that accepting the archdiocese’s ads would force the agency to accept other religious-themed ads that could cause “tension and divisiveness” and interfere with the agency’s ability to run the system.
At oral argument, the archdiocese said Metro’s policy unfairly and unconstitutionally singled out the church by allowing secular advertisers to promote Christmas shopping and charitable giving.
{snip}
Ann Marimow
Ann Marimow covers legal affairs for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005 and has covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Follow https://twitter.com/amarimow
You don't believe me, do you? While working at home, I'm also throwing out old papers. I ran across this. Read it and be amazed:
DOWNLOAD
Paul Clement
By Kate Murphy
April 7, 2012
Paul Clement is a former United States solicitor general and current partner with the Washington law firm Bancroft P.L.L.C. He recently received widespread praise even from opponents for his nimble oral arguments before the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a law that if left intact would extend health care coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans.
READING Mostly briefs, old Supreme Court cases and the Federalist Papers, so when I get a chance to unwind I grab novels like “True History of the Kelly Gang,” by Peter Carey, which is beautifully written and completely evocative of the early days of Australia. Or I’ll read travel writing, like a bunch of Norman Lewis classics, or humor, like an old P. G. Wodehouse book.
The only legal book I am reading is Chuck Lane’s book on the death penalty. “The Day Freedom Died,” about the Colfax massacre, is one of the best legal books I have read. I am also reading “The Trumpet of the Swan,” by E. B. White, but only out loud and at bedtime to my 9-year-old.
?q
Credit...Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press
LISTENING It is hard to beat Nirvana’s “Complete Sub Pop Singles.” And I’m a big fan of the Kooks. It’s very catchy and a little less loud than Nirvana and a little more family-friendly.