CTA's 2nd Brief & Response to Plaintiff's 1st Brief - National Center ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 2 of 80 ID: 7418245 DktEntry: 45-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................... iv CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............................ 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................. 2 ISSUES PRESENTED .............................................. 4 STANDARDOFREVIEW ........................................... 6 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .................................... 7 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................ 7 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................... 8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................... 19 ARGUMENT ..................................................... 21 I . Dr . Corbett's Statements Did Not Violate the Establishment Clause ................................................ 21 A . Legal Framework ................................... 21 1 . Secular Purpose .............................. 23 2 . Principal or Primary Effect ..................... 24 3 . Entanglement ................................ 25
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 3 of 80 ID: 7418245 DktEntry: 45-1 4. Not All Public Employee Speech Carries the Imprimatur of The Employer Nor of State Action ............. 26 B. Farnan's Offense at Statements with No Religious Content Raise No Establishment Clause Issues ................. 26 C. Dr. Corbett's Statements About Religion Were Part of an Appropriate Secular Education Program and Were Lawhl .................................. 28 1. Except for Its Ruling on the Peloza Comment, the District Court Correctly Found that Statements About Religion Satisfied the Lemon Analysis ............ 28 a. Secular Purpose ......................... 28 b. The Primary Effect of Dr. Corbett's Statements Was Primarily Secular .................... 32 c. Dr. Corbett's Statements Raise No Excessive Entanglement Concerns ................... 33 2. The District Court Erred in Finding that Peloza Statement Violated the Establishment Clause ....... 33 a. There Was a Secular Purpose for the Comment Because It Was Directed Not at Religious Belief But at the Unconstitutional Practices of a Biology Teacher ................................ 35 b. The Primary Effect Does Not Show Government Hostility <strong>to</strong> Religion ..................... 36 c. Dr. Corbett's Comment Does Not Raise Excessive Entanglement Concerns ................... 37
Page 1: Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 1 o
Page 5 and 6: Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 5 o
Page 11 and 12: Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 11
Page 13 and 14: encourages students to test their i
Page 15 and 16: (3) Whether the District Court abus
Page 21 and 22: Dr. Corbett also encourages student
Page 25 and 26: Id at 521. Case: 09-56689 07/26/201
Page 33 and 34: to pass muster. Edwards v. Aguillar
Page 37 and 38: The District Court correctly determ
Page 41 and 42: attendance correlations by omitting
Page 53 and 54:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 53
Page 55 and 56:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 55
Page 57 and 58:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 57
Page 59 and 60:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 59
Page 61 and 62:
explanation of delay and acted prom
Page 63 and 64:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 63
Page 65 and 66:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 65
Page 67 and 68:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 67
Page 69 and 70:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 69
Page 71 and 72:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 71
Page 73 and 74:
Judicial treatment of qualified imm
Page 75 and 76:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 75
Page 77 and 78:
Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 77
Page 79 and 80:
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify
show all

CTA's 2nd Brief & Response to Plaintiff's 1st Brief - National Center ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?