The Supreme Court will soon weigh in on a case involving a Florida city's prayer vigil that offended atheist residents and allegedly violated the First Amendment, The Epoch Times reported.
The suit comes as the conservative-majority court appears to be taking an increasingly protective stance on religious freedom. The case, Florida v. Rojas, is scheduled to be heard on Friday.
Oral arguments will be scheduled if four out of the nine Supreme Court justices vote to hear the case.
The vigil in Ocala was held in 2014 after a drive-by shooting injured several children. The local chief of police and community leaders urged locals to come to the event, according to The Epoch Times.
Atheists that attended said the city breached the separation of church and state as well as the Constitution's Establishment Clause. The Epoch Times noted they claimed the event was religious in nature, making atheists feel disregarded.
According to the brief, "Uniformed police personal preached Christianity in a revivalist style to hundreds of citizens assembled at its behest for an hour in the heart of town."
"The [respondents] were invited to attend by their own city officials and had an interest in being a part of the community and were concerned about crime. They attended but were unable to participate in any of the activity because it was all prayer," read the brief.
The suit was brought in federal district court where one respondent had "offended observer" status. The judgment against the city of Ocala and the chief of police was $1 in damages, according to The Epoch Times.
Across the country, in Washington state, the Supreme Court ruled that a school district violated First Amendment religious freedom protections after Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach, was fired for having prayer after games on the field. The court found in June 2022 the Constitution allows for such prayers, reported The Epoch Times.
The 11th Circuit sent the Florida case to district court, allowing for an "opportunity to apply … the historical practices and understandings standard endorsed" in the aforementioned case, according to The Epoch Times.
The city of Ocala petitioned the Supreme Court to review the lower court's decision on whether "psychic or emotional offense allegedly caused by observation of religious message [is] an injury sufficient to confer standing … including where the offended party deliberately seeks out the exposure in question," reported The Epoch Times.
Senior litigation counsel at American Center for Law and Justice, Abigail Southerland, told The Epoch Times, "This is the only area of law in which 'offended observer' status has been recognized by lower courts … the Supreme Court has indicated that offended observer standing is not sufficient standing to bring an Establishment Clause case or claim."
She added, "I think the trend to return to an original interpretation of the Constitution, rather than to expand its application, will be helpful, hopefully, to us in this case."