Yesterday in American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, Inc. v. Matteen, (NC Ct. App., Jan. 16, 2007), the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that enough of an actual case or controversy exists that a challenge can move forward to North Carolina's practice of only allowing court witnesses and jurors to be sworn in on the Christian Bible. Reversing the trial court's earlier decision (see prior posting), the Court of Appeals found that an actual controversy existed between the state and both a Muslim whose request to be sworn in using the Quran had been refused, and Jewish members of the ACLU who, if called for jury duty or as witnesses, would prefer to be sworn in using the Old Testament.
Now the case will go back to the trial court for it to decide the merits of the ACLU's claim that when the statute, N.C.G.S. § 11-2, calls for persons be sworn in using the "Holy Scriptures", that should be interpreted to include not just the Christian Bible, but also other religious texts including the Quran, the Old Testament, and the Bhagavad-Gita. The ACLU says that if this is not the case, then the statute is unconstitutional under the free exercise andestablishmentt clauses of the federalconstitutionn and under the religious liberty provision of North Carolina's constitution (Art. I, Sec. 13).
The Associated Press yesterday reported on the Court of Appeals decision.
