ACLJ Says Appeals Court Made the Right Decision by Dismissing ACLU’s Legal Attack on the Boy Scouts

WASHINGTON, April 6, 2007—An ACLU lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Defense's support of the Boy Scouts of America and its national jamboree has been dismissed by a federal appeals court-ending what the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) pointed to as yet another example of the ACLU's flawed view of the constitution.

Representing 90 members of Congress, the ACLJ had filed an amicus brief with the appeals court asking that the suit be dismissed.

"This is just another example of the ACLU trying to impose its flawed view of the constitution on the rest of America," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "The military provides the Boy Scouts with support and services that aid both the military and the Scouts without endorsing religion."

"This lawsuit should never have been brought in the first place and we're pleased the appeals court dismissed the suit clearing the way for this beneficial relationship between the military and the Boy Scouts to continue," said Sekulow.

The ACLJ asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to reverse a lower court decision that declared a 1972 statute passed by Congress unconstitutional. The lower court had claimed that allowing the Defense Department to provide support to the Boy Scouts every four years when the Scouts hold their Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia violated the separation of church and state.

In a decision released this week, the appeals court ruled that the ACLU-backed taxpayer plaintiffs who brought the suit did not have legal standing to bring the case and dismissed the lawsuit.

The dispute began in 1999 when the ACLU filed a suit claiming that the Defense Department's sponsorship of the Boys Scouts violated the First Amendment because the group requires its members to swear an oath which states, in part, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country." A federal district court said the Jamboree statute was unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause because it had a primary effect of advancing religion. The decision was appealed to the 7th Circuit.

As part of the appeal, the ACLJ argued that the lower court used flawed legal reasoning to reach its conclusion-and pointed out that the Defense Department's support comes in the form of "non-religious supplies and services."

According to the ACLJ brief: "The military's rental of forklifts and trucks, transportation and military equipment, restoration of Fort A.P. Hill after the Jamboree, and provision of other secular services is clearly ‘neutral and nonideological.' The only possible message that the military's aid can be viewed as conveying is that patriotism, self-reliance, physical fitness, and support of the military are positive things."

The brief is posted online at www.aclj.org.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ online newsroom can be accessed at www.DeMossNewsPond.com/ACLJ. 

 

###