In Rojas v. City of Ocala, Florida, (11th Cir., July 22, 2022), 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. In the case, plaintiffs who are atheists and humanists sued, challenging a prayer vigil that was co-sponsored by the Ocala police department held in response to a shooting spree that had injured several children. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. On appeal, the court said in part:
When the district court granted summary judgment, it believed that the analytical framework articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman ... was the controlling law. Even though many Justices soured on Lemon over the years, the Court seemingly could not rid itself of that much-maligned decision. Justice Scalia colorfully described Lemon as “[l]ike some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried.”...
After this appeal was filed, however, the Supreme Court drove a stake through the heart of the ghoul and told us that the Lemon test is gone, buried for good, never again to sit up in its grave. Finally and unambiguously, the Court has “abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot.” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. ... (2022)....
[T]he Supreme Court has definitively decided that Lemon is dead — long live historical practices and understandings....
We remand this case to the district court to give it an opportunity to apply in the first instance the historical practices and understandings standard endorsed in Kennedy.
