The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit heard oral arguments in the Pittsylvania County public prayer case Tuesday, and focused most of their questions on whether the county had filed an appeal on time.
“We had asked the court early on to dismiss the appeal based on that,” said Virginia ACLU Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg, whose organization is representing county resident Barbara Hudson.
State Sen. Bill Stanley, who represents the county, filed an appeal to the decision on Sept. 18, more than a year after a district court ruled against the county and asking them to pay for about $53,000 in legal fees for Hudson.
Stanley filed the appeal after the U.S. Supreme Court in May ruled in favor of public prayer in a case from the Greece, New York, Town Council. Most of the questions asked Tuesday by judges centered on whether this late of an appeal was valid.
People are also reading…
“It seemed that the issue should be brought before the district court now,” Stanley said, indicating he believed the court thought the ruling should be decided at the district level. Stanley said the district court refused to hear the case again after he filed a motion to amend or remove the court’s prayer ban.
Stanley said he still had hope for his side’s case.
“We’re confident that we will win this one way or the other,” he said.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said when a court again hears the prayer argument, it will focus on whether the Greece case sets enough of a precedent to be taken into consideration.
“The county is arguing that this case is similar to Greece and the plaintiffs are trying to distinguish it,” Tobias said in an email.
The professor countered the county’s argument, saying he thought it was too broad to claim Greece set the precedent for all future public prayer cases.
“I think an issue in Greece and other cases is that only one religion is represented in the prayers, and that can be difficult for those who are not of that faith and are seeking something from that government entity,” he said, echoing the thoughts of Supreme Court justices who dissented with the Greece ruling.
Ultimately, Tobias said the court would have to decide whether a First Amendment violation occurred based on the facts of the case.