Legal Question : Precedent and how many times does one have to get a ruling on the same issue...

[TipTok]

One of my pet interests is appropriate separation of church and state... particularly regarding public schools.

I regularly read stories of teachers, coaches, and school administrators preaching the 'good word' on school time to a captive audience.

Often, an organization like the Freedom From Religion Foundation will take up the case and write a letter and if the activity isn't stopped then a court case can go forward.

At what point is something, not even this specific issue, considered to have a legal foundation and bringing someone in a X vs Y court case in unnecessary?

IOW, at what point can someone make a call to the authorities and report that a law is being broken and it is on the government to investigate and prosecute as opposed to a private organization bringing the school etc.. to court?

"I've been robbed" " My civil rights were violated" etc.. etc..

Or is it always necessary?

I believe that I understand that the issues can be re-adjudicated at state levels based on state laws but what about a federal mandate such as the establishment clause?

Clear as mud I hope... I feel like this is a basic concept but I must have missed that specific day of civics...

[truedelphi]

1. If it is public schools where this activity is happening,

Then I imagine that a Presidential Executive order would work.

After all, the schools receive Federal Monies to operate, so that puts each and every one of them under Fed purview.

No real reason other than it would be unpopular among the people Obama golfs with; otherwise it could happen immediately.

[jeff47]

6. Would still require a lawsuit to enforce.

Even if such an order were given, the way it would be enforced is via lawsuit.

These are civil offenses, not crimes. Lawsuits are the only way to resolve civil offenses (assuming one side doesn't back down).

[jberryhill]

2. There are things that can happen to you which are not a crime, but you can sue for

If I point a gun at you and say "give me $5", there is a specific criminal law I have violated, and for which you can call the police to arrest me for doing it. Those things called "crimes" are offenses which the state has a general interest in enforcing.

If you pay me a $5 deposit on my fee to sing at your wedding, and I don't show up to sing at your wedding, then, in general you cannot call the police and have me arrested. Now, it *might* fall into a fraud statute if I didn't have any intention to sing at your wedding, but I had a sore throat that day and couldn't sing. What you and I have is a contract dispute. You have to sue me to get your $5 back.

There is no crime of "the government engaging in religion". For a lot of those types of situations, there is a law that gives you the right to sue for monetary damages, injunctive relief (an enforceable order telling them to stop), and, significantly, attorney's fees for bringing the suit.

The establishment clause is not a criminal statute, it is simply a statement that says "the government can't do X". If the government does do X, then you have the right to sue them. The deterrent to the government doing X, in that situation, is the hassle and expense of being constantly sued over it. It's not as if anyone is going to get locked up over it in any event.

[Daemonaquila]

3. Basics on Precedent...

Lower level state or federal court (X County District Court, U.S. District Court, administrative courts, etc.) decisions have NO precedential value. Not ever.

Appeals Court (X State Court of Appeals, X Circuit Court of Appeals, etc.) decisions that are PUBLISHED (not all are) are precedential as to the issue they've decided, but only in that state or federal circuit that the court of appeals covers.

State Supreme Court decisions are the final arbiter of state law issues, and are the ultimate precedent for their state (unless there is a further appeal to the US Supreme Court).

The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions are precedential as to the entire country.

[H2O Man]

4. Perhaps you would

benefit from taking the time to study the differences between criminal and civil law.

[jeff47]

5. Never.

It's a civil violation. Those always are always handled via lawsuits.

Now, frequently one side will "back down" and a lawsuit won't be necessary, but lawsuits are always the enforcement mechanism.

[Daemonaquila]

7. Regarding "reporting..."

Nobody will do anything with regard to a civil issue unless you take it to court.

You're theoretically supposed to be able to report a crime to the police, and have it investigated, prosecuted if the office chooses to, etc.

However, on the civil end (civil rights violations, constitutional violations, etc.) you have to bring a case every time a request/complaint to the offending body (school, for example) or its governing body (school board, for example), etc. gets no voluntary compliance. There is no such thing as just being able to make a complaint and have it responded to without a fight, automatically, regardless of the precedent. Also, there is never a point you can "make a call to the authorities" and have it be their responsibility to "prosecute" it in a civil matter. Various governmental and business entities have large legal staffs that advise them about what they can and can't do, or in many cases about how to do what they know they shouldn't be doing by claiming some type of loophole in the law. Each and every time, it's up to a plaintiff to take it to court.

[Jerry442]

8. True, but in the case of repeated incidents...

...it should be possible to add whacking big punitive damages to the verdict based on the idea that the defendants knew their conduct was impermissible and were engaged in nothing but harassment.