LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This Blog from the Capital article talks about a nasty little House Act that is flying under the radar:

The Public Expression of Religion Act

HR 2679 would apply to any lawsuit regarding the estabishment of religion by state or local government, in violation of the Constitution--from forced school prayer to the public funding of religion. The law, now in committee, would keep plaintiffs in such cases from seeking damages or attorney's fees if they win.

Why would Congress consider putting that kind of limit on citizens who have been injured by the government in this way? Over the weekend, I watched the webcast of Thursday's House Constitution Subcommittee hearing on the bill to find out. (I know I know, it's a sad way to spend the weekend what can I say...). The panel consisted of 3 in support of the bill and 1 against, American Jewish Congress counsel Marc Stern.

I've picked out the choice quotes from participants and posted them below, but the essential message is this: PERA would embolden governments to err on the side of establishing religion; it would increase the financial burden on those whose rights have been violated should they decide to seek their day in court; and it could have a severe disincentive effect, reflected in an exchange between Mr. Stern and committee member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) [My transcription]

Nadler: Under this bill, what would stop a recalcitrant governing authority in a local government from violating a federal court order?

Stern: Nothing….It is an open invitation for people to defy the Constitution in the interest of political convenience at their will.

More quotes below the fold. You can also read Americans United response against the bill here. The American Legion supports the bill in a press release here.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today urged the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution to reject a bill that would cut off reasonable attorneys’ fees in church-state cases.

The measure, known as the “Public Expression of Religion Act” (H.R. 2679), would deny attorneys who get involved in church-state cases the ability to recover any of the legal fees and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in such litigation.

“This bill is a punitive measure clearly designed to scare Americans from participating in church-state cases,” said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It would have a chilling effect on every citizen’s right to access our courts and would be particularly harmful to religious minorities.”

Around the country, national organizations and individual attorneys sometimes file litigation on behalf of local plaintiffs who believe that government has violated their rights by unconstitutionally getting involved in matters of religion. If the litigation is successful, the law allows for the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket expenses. The sums recovered are usually determined after negotiations among all parties and a federal court.