Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteinjunctionappealrespondent
statuteinjunctionappealrespondent

Related Cases

City of West St. Paul v. Krengel, 748 N.W.2d 333
View Case »
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490, 56 USLW 4806, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14030A
View Case »
Wisconsin v. Hotline Industries, Inc., 236 F.3d 363
View Case »
Hubbard v. Administrator, E.P.A., 982 F.2d 531, 299 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 61 USLW 2345
View Case »
Collegiate Licensing Co. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 713 F.3d 71, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 139
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 122 S.Ct. 1, 150 L.Ed.2d 782, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8207, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,045, 2001 DJCAR 4676

Facts

The applicants, Virginia public school students and their parents, challenged the constitutionality of a Virginia statute that requires public schools to observe a minute of silence at the start of each school day. They argued that the statute establishes religion in violation of the First Amendment. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to obtain injunctive relief from both the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the applicants sought an injunction pending the Supreme Court's disposition of their petition for certiorari.

Applicants are Virginia public school students and their parents who challenge the constitutionality of a state statute, effective as of July 1, 2000, that requires all of Virginia's public schools to observe a minute of silence at the start of each schoolday.

Issue

Whether an injunction should be issued to prevent the enforcement of Virginia's statute mandating a minute of silence in public schools pending the Supreme Court's review.

Whether an injunction should be issued to prevent the enforcement of Virginia's statute mandating a minute of silence in public schools pending the Supreme Court's review.

Rule

Injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances, and is appropriate only if the legal rights at issue are 'indisputably clear.'

It is established, and our own rules require, that injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used 'sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.'

Analysis

The court found that the applicants' rights were not 'indisputably clear' as the majority opinion in the Court of Appeals had distinguished the Virginia statute from previous cases, noting that it had a clear secular purpose. The court emphasized that the lack of evidence showing that the minute of silence was used for collective prayer further supported the argument that the statute did not establish religion.

The pros and cons of the applicants' claim on the merits are fully set forth in the majority and dissenting opinions in the Court of Appeals. Applicants contend that this case is virtually a replay of Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985), in which we struck down a similar Alabama statute. But the majority opinion in the Court of Appeals took pains to distinguish the present case from Wallace.

Conclusion

The application for an injunction pending certiorari was denied, as the court concluded that the applicants' position was less than indisputable.

For these reasons, I decline to issue an injunction pending certiorari in this case.

Who won?

The respondents prevailed in the case because the court found that the applicants did not demonstrate that their legal rights were indisputably clear.

The respondents prevailed in the case because the court found that the applicants did not demonstrate that their legal rights were indisputably clear.

You must be