Rowan Cnty. v. Lund

138 S. Ct. 2564
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided June 28, 2018·No. No. 17–565.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

*2567The Sixth Circuit, also sitting en banc, recently surveyed this history and upheld a municipal prayer policy virtually identical to Rowan County's. See Bormuth v. County of Jackson, 870 F.3d 494 (2017). The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that its decision was "in conflict with the Fourth Circuit's" but found the latter "unpersuasive," id., at 509, n. 5 -not least because the Fourth Circuit "apparently did not consider the numerous examples of [legislator-led] prayers" in our Nation's history, id., at 510. Thus, the Sixth and Fourth Circuits are now split on the legality of legislator-led prayer. State and local lawmakers can lead prayers in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan, but not in South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, or West Virginia. This Court should have stepped in to resolve this conflict.

I respectfully dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rowan Cnty. v. Lund, 138 S. Ct. 2564 (U.S. 2018).

138 S. Ct. 2564 (Rowan Cnty. v. Lund) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Freedom From Religion v. Mack
54 F.4th 320 (Fifth Circuit, 2022)
Fields v. Speaker of the Pa. House of Representatives
327 F. Supp. 3d 748 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2018)