House Passes Court Stripping Measure
American Civil Liberties Union
ACLU Disappointed with House Passage of ‘Court Stripping’ Measure, Calls on Senate to Uphold System of Checks and Balances
WASHINGTON
– The American Civil Liberties Union [yesterday] expressed
disappointment as the House of Representatives approved a controversial
court stripping measure. The legislation would strip jurisdiction from
all federal courts – including the Supreme Court – over any
constitutional claim involving the Pledge of Allegiance or its
recitation, and is the latest of several similar court stripping
measures.
“With
this vote, the House has said that the federal judiciary should not be
a co-equal branch of the government,” said Terri Ann Schroeder, an ACLU
Legislative Analyst. “The role of an independent federal judiciary is
crucial in our time-honored system of checks and balances.
“The Senate should reject this unwise measure,” Schroeder added.
The
bill, H.R.2028, the “Pledge Protection Act of 2003,” bars all federal
courts, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing cases involving the
Pledge of Allegiance. If enacted, the measure would effectively close
federal court house doors to religious minorities, parents,
schoolchildren and others who seek nothing more than to have their
religious and free speech claims heard before the courts most uniquely
suited to entertain such claims. It was adopted by the House on a vote
of 247 to 173.
While
the supporters of the bill pushed it as an appropriate response to
recent court decisions that they dislike concerning the words “under
God” in the Pledge, the ACLU warned that the impact of the bill would
be far-reaching. All federal courts would be barred from considering
ALL constitutional claims related to the pledge. Just last month, the
Third Circuit held that a Pennsylvania law mandating recitation of the
Pledge violated the Constitution because it violated the free speech
rights of the students – such cases could not be heard if H.R.2028 were
to become law.
The ACLU
also pointed to a growing trend by some members of Congress to push
similar court stripping measures. Similar measures under consideration
consider the ability of the courts to review cases considering the
legal definition of marriage, and the ability of courts to review the
public display of the Ten Commandments.
Passage
of any of these measures, the ACLU said, would establish a dangerous
precedent for Congress to respond to court decisions with which they
disagree. Furthermore, the denial of access to the federal courts would
force plaintiffs to raise federal claims and concerns in state courts,
which may lack expertise and independent safeguards provided to federal
judges under Article III of the Constitution
“Court
stripping measures strike at the very purpose the founding fathers
created the federal courts,” Schroeder added. “They saw a need for
neutral arbiter that would be the final authority in determining the
constitutionality of the laws that Congress passed. Today the House has
said that the American people do not deserve an independent judiciary.”
The ACLU’s letter urging opposition to H.R. 2028 is available here.
Blog For Iowa 