Supreme Court Denies Cert in Elmbrook School District v. Doe

16 June 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

In a somewhat surprising move, the U.S. Supreme Court today denied the Elmbrook (Wisconsin) School District’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Elmbrook School District v. Doe, No. 12-755, over the dissents of Justices Scalia and Thomas. The School District petitioned from the decision of an en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that Elmbrook violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause when it held graduation events for many years in the auditorium of Elmbrook Church. That en banc decision had in turn overturned the decision of the original panel in the case finding no Establishment Clause violation. 

The petition was originally filed in December 2012, but was held over for the 2013-2014 Supreme Court term, apparently because the Court granted cert in the government prayer case, Town of Greece v. Galloway, No. 12-696. The Court decided Town of Greece on May 5, 2014, reversing the decision of the Second Circuit by a 5-4 vote and holding in an opinion by Justice Kennedy that the town’s practice of opening its town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Elmbrook parties filed supplemental briefing in early May about the impact of Town of Greece, and there was considerable speculation whether in light of Town of Greece the Supreme Court might grant cert in Elmbrook or at least grant, vacate, and remand.

Today’s order puts that speculation to rest and leaves the Seventh Circuit’s decision intact—a result that prompted Justice Scalia to pen a seven-page dissent, joined by Justice Thomas. The dissent describes the holding in Town of Greece and states that “[i]t may well be, as then-Chief Judge Easterbrook [of the Seventh Circuit] suggested [in an opinion dissenting from the en banc panel’s decision], that the decision of the Elmbrook School District to hold graduations under a Latin cross in a Christian church was ‘unwise’ and ‘offensive.’ But Town of Greece makes manifest that an establish of religion it was not.” The dissent argues that under the circumstances, if a grant of cert was not warranted, then granting, vacating, and remanding the Seventh Circuit’s decision was.

Justice Scalia’s dissenting view, while interesting, is likely to provide little solace to the School District, which potentially now faces an effort by the Doe parties to recover more than $800,000 in fees for legal services incurred even before the Supreme Court appeal was filed.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services