ACLJ Opposes Legal Challenge to Inaugural Prayer - Files Amicus Brief in Support of Constitutionality of Inaugural Prayer.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The American Center for Law and Justice, specializing in constitutional law, is opposing a legal challenge brought by California atheist Michael Newdow challenging the constitutionality of prayer at the Presidential inauguration. The ACLJ has filed an amicus brief in support of the Department of Justice's position defending the constitutionality of inaugural prayer.

"This challenge is legally flawed and represents nothing more than an attempt to remove a time-honored tradition going back to the nation's first President," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which has challenged Newdow's lawsuits in the past. "The expression of prayer at the Presidential inauguration is not only constitutional, but an important part of the history and heritage of this nation. We're confident that this legal challenge will meet the same fate of a similar challenge brought by Newdow four years ago concerning inaugural prayer - a legal challenge that was rejected by the courts."

The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. in support of the Department of Justice's position defending the constitutionality of inaugural prayer. The brief is posted: http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/050110_Newdow_v_Bush_ Inaugural_Amicus_BrieF.pdf (Due to its length, this URL may need to be copied/pasted into your Internet browser's address field. Remove the extra space if one exists.)

In the brief, the ACLJ contends that Newdow's challenge is a "personal crusade" that "serves no purpose other than to waste judicial resources at a time in our Nation's history when those resources are needed in cases involving real threats to American liberties."

The ACLJ contends the constitutionality of the inaugural prayer is settled law with the Supreme Court in 1983 concluding in its decision in Marsh v. Chambers that the "opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country." The high court also noted that the First Congress "did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government's official seal of approval on one religious view."

In addition to noting that Newdow's first attempt at challenging inaugural prayers in 2001 was flatly rejected by both a federal district court and appeals court, the ACLJ brief states that virtually every President since George Washington has evoked assistance of the Divine and asked for the blessing of the nation and its people.

In his first inaugural address, President Washington proclaimed that "no people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States" because "every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency."

Last year, the ACLJ represented members of Congress and hundreds of thousands of Americans in filing a brief at the Supreme Court opposing Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, which the high court rejected. Newdow has filed a new lawsuit once again challenging the Pledge and the ACLJ will once again file briefs opposing that challenge.

The American Center for Law and Justice is based in Washington, D.C. and is online at www.aclj.org.