Federal appeals court strikes down faith-based prison program
It didn’t exactly capture a lot of attention, but last year, a federal court issued a very important ruling when it comes to the separation of church and state.
Prison Fellowship Ministries, founded by ex-Watergate felon Charles Colson, was effectively given an entire wing of Iowa’s Newton Correctional Facility, at which Colson’s group created what was basically a state-sponsored evangelism program (called InnerChange). In striking down funding for the program as a blatant violation of the First Amendment, the judge explained, “For all practical purposes, the state has literally established an Evangelical Christian congregation within the walls of one of its penal institutions…. There are no adequate safeguards present, nor could there be, to ensure that state funds are not being directly spent to indoctrinate Iowa inmates.”
The case (filed by my former employer, Americans United for Separation of Church and State) went to the 8th Circuit on appeal, and today the appeals court agreed that the faith-based program is unconstitutional.
Americans United presented evidence that inmates who took part in InnerChange were given better treatment and perks that were not available to others, including better housing and expedited access to classes required for parole…. At trial, inmates testified that they were pressured to convert to evangelical Christianity, and that the beliefs of Roman Catholics and other faiths were ridiculed. The court record showed that non-Christians were frequently referred to as “unsaved,” “lost,” “pagan” and “sinful” by InnerChange staff. The program required staffers to abide by an evangelical statement of faith.
In a unanimous decision joined by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the appeals court upheld a lower court ruling issued on June 2, 2006, except that it reversed a portion of the lower court ruling that required InnerChange to return funds it received prior to June 2006. InnerChange will still need to return funds it received after the June 2006 ruling.
First, congratulations to my friends at Americans United. Second, let’s take a moment to consider just how big a victory this is.
Added AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex J. Luchenitser, “This ruling is a major setback for the White House’s ‘Faith-Based Initiative.’ It reaffirms that the government must ensure that public funds are not used for religious instruction, and that the government must not aid programs that discriminate based on religion.”
Quite right. Faith-based advocates have been very fond of Colson’s program in Iowa, and sought to expand it to other states. Now, that’s apparently off the table. For that matter, the entire prison-conversion program is predicated on the basic pitch underlying Bush’s faith-based policy — religious groups will get public funds to perform social services, without any pesky safeguards to protect religious liberty, the rights of beneficiaries, the integrity of the ministry, etc.
The decision states: “In the present case, plaintiffs demonstrated . . . that the InnerChange program resulted in inmate enrollment in a program dominated by Bible study, Christian classes, religious revivals, and church services.” The opinion concluded that the state’s “direct aid to InnerChange violated the Establishment clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions.”
And if this is unconstitutional, much of the White House faith-based initiative is unconstitutional, too.
A small quibble, but isn’t “ex-Watergate felon” Charles Colson still a Watergate felon?
In a unanimous decision joined by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
Former Supremes get to join cases anytime they want? Please explain?
Martin –
It is called “sitting by designation.” The short of it is that circuit courts are often short judges, either due to vacancies, “senior status” judges who have reduced their workloads, vacations, illnesses etc. The Chief Judge of the circuit can invite other federal judges to sit “by designation” on the 3-judge panels that hear cases. Other reasons this happens is that many circuits allow the district judges within the circuit to sit with the appeals court periodically to get a feel for it and a different view; often senior judges at all levels will “volunteer” to sit by designation elsewhere (say, a cold-state judge that winters in a warm state); and because it is a unique opportunity for the advocates and the judges of a particular circuit, retired Supreme Court justices (infrequent though they are) are invited or permitted (and presumably someone like O’Connor gets bored).
The judge “sitting by designation” does not just get to sweep in for select cases of their own choosing; they are assigned to a panel and get the cases randomly assigned to that panel, whatever those may be.
If you keep an eye out you will see a lot of court of appeals opinions from panels that include a judge sitting by designation. In general it is a nice way to bring a fresh view to a court now and then to a group of judges who otherwise don’t get their intellectual routine shaken up that often once they get used to serving together.
Former Supremes get to join cases anytime they want? Please explain? -Martin
It is a little known perk of the job. They are also allowed to join, without hesitation or impediment:
-Together hand in hand
-A jug band
-Nucleotides
-Publishers Clearinghouse
and
-The A-Team
Seriously, I don’t know either. Seems like it is a non-binding opinion added for weight.
Martin
I was curious about that, too, it being a lower-level court. Apparently she was “designated” to sit as a judge in this case. There were two sitting judges included in the opinion.
But beyond Justice Connor’s participation, this case is very interesting from all kinds of aspects. Apparently some staff-members of the Prison Fellowship Ministries functioned as correctional institution staff.
Here’s a quote from the link above:
Those who went through the program and proclaimed their Christianity through a number of commitment statements as a result received benefits that others did not.
But it looks as if the primary reason for striking down the prison program as being unconstitutional was that it was paid for in large part by State funding (passed by the State legislature) that did not require a differentiation between religious and secular activities in the billing procedures. This wasn’t a bunch of gung-ho missionary-types going into the prison free of charge and “bringing the word” to the benighted souls there. They actually received state money for many of their expenses (administrative and managerial salaries in particular) from taxpayers.
=====
NOW, on to the rest of Bush’s faith-based programs! Not a penny more of taxpayer money for them!
They are also allowed to join, without hesitation or impediment:
-Together hand in hand
But only if they are not of the same sex. Otherwise the hue and cry for impeachment will be heard across the land, lead by Sam Brownback.
Nice of Sandra Day O’Connor to locate her judicial restraint now. Too bad she couldn’t find it back in December of 2000. The Iowa case would never have been necessary if she had been less partisan and more judicial in the first place.
Yes. I admit it. I’m carrying a gigantic grudge.
From the always authoritative Wikipedia:
“As a Retired Supreme Court Justice (roughly equivalent to senior status for judges of lower federal courts), Justice O’Connor is entitled to receive a full salary, maintain a staffed office with at least one law clerk, and to hear cases on a part-time basis in the federal District Courts and Courts of Appeals.”
I had heard of this before today, but the commenters above sent me looking for an explanation. Apparently she’s just another judge now, so there’s nothing sinister about her participation.