Rowan Cnty. v. Lund

Supreme Court

Rowan Cnty. v. Lund

138 S. Ct. 2564

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 28, 2018

DocketNo. 17–565.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 S. Ct. 2564 (Rowan Cnty. v. Lund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

*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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S. Ct. 2564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowan-cnty-v-lund-scotus-2018.

Opinion

I respectfully dissent.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack