Karcher v. May
| Karcher v. May | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 6, 1987 Decided December 1, 1987 |
|
| Full case name | Karcher, Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly, et al. v. May et al |
| Docket nos. | 85-1551 |
| Citations | 484 U.S. 72 (more)
108 S.Ct. 388, 98 L.Ed.2d 327
|
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, Scalia |
| Concurrence | White |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Art. III, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(1) | |
Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72 (1987), was a school prayer case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the former presiding officers of the New Jersey legislature did not have Article III standing to appeal a case, that standing had passed on to their legislative successors.
In 1982, the New Jersey Legislature passed a statute over the governor's veto providing for a moment of silence in public schools, which failed to specifically mention prayer. May filed a lawsuit in the federal United States District Court for the District of New Jersey challenging the constitutionality of the statute; the executive-branch officials normally tasked with defending such suits (the Governor and the Attorney General) admitted the unconstitutionality of the statute and refused to defend it in court. Consequently, Alan Karcher, Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly, and Carmen Orechio, President of the New Jersey Senate, moved to intervene (under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) as defendants on behalf of the Legislature; the court granted the motion. In 1983, the District Court found that the purpose of the statute was religious, and deemed the law unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
Karcher and Orechio appealed, although by the time of filing their terms as Speaker and President had expired; their successors, Chuck Hardwick and John F. Russo, joined the executive officers in refusing to defend the constitutionality of the statute. Karcher and Orechio's lawyer, Rex E. Lee, nevertheless contended that their standing to continue to defend suit on the state's behalf remained, and also argued the purpose of the law was secular.
...
Wikipedia