The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in City of Ocala, Florida v. Rojas, (Docket No. 22-278, certiorari denied 3/6/2023) (Order List.) In the case the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court's Establishment Clause decision that had relied on the now-repudiated Lemon test. The district court had granted summary judgment to plaintiffs who challenged a prayer vigil co-sponsored by the Ocala police department held in response to a shooting spree that injured several children. (See prior posting.) Justices Gorsuch and Thomas filed separate opinions (full text). Justice Gorsuch, while agreeing with the denial of certiorari, contended that the district court should also reconsider the question of plaintiffs' standing as "offended observers," saying in part:
"... [M]ost every governmental action probably offends somebody. No doubt, too, that offense can be sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise. But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation. Instead, in a society that holds among its most cherished ambitions mutual respect, tolerance, self-rule, and democratic responsibility, an ‘offended viewer’ may ‘avert his eyes’ or pursue a political solution."
Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of review, saying in part:
[W]e should have granted certiorari to review whether respondents had standing to bring their claims. Standing is an antecedent jurisdictional requirement that must be established before a court reaches the merits....
I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the “offended observer” theory of standing applied below.
