The 1964 Act is problematic. Title II forbids discrimination in public accommodations, whose definition does not include jury duty. Title III allows the Attorney General to bring a civil suit against a public [i.e., governmental] facility for religious discrimination, but only upon receiving a complaint and certifying that the action "will materially further the orderly progress of desegregation in public facilities." I suppose the AG could argue that the exclusion of atheists is a form of religious segregation. It's not clear whether the same standing argument would apply as to a private suit. There is no private right of action under Title III, since 1983 would seem to provide the right. It may be that Ms. Moore should send a complaint to DOJ under Title III [42 USC 2000b et seq.].
Title 28 forbids religious discrimination in jury selection in federal trials, but does not address state trials. 18 USC 243 makes race discrimination in jury selection a federal crime but does not address other forms of discrimination. 18 USC 245 does protect against discrimination in participation in juries, but only where the challenged action is "by force or threat of force." -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:00 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Atheists on Jury Duty in Alabma ONe other thought, is this a civil rights violation based on religion? I am not in the office and don't have easy access to the 1964 act but I would bet this is a violation of the '64 act, and if jury duty is tied to voting, does it violate the '65 voting rights act as well? Paul Finkelman Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/24/08 4:15 PM >>> Well, it's clearly unconstitutional, as you say. Torcaso v. Watkins (US 1961) says government can't require affirmation of belief in God to be a notary public. Jury member should be no different. And we have provided alternate forms of oath for religious objectors since the 18th century. Everyone gets to swear or affirm; the option to affirm was written for Quakers, but it should be available for you too. But it might be very hard to set this up as a case a court could decide. Do you sue somebody for an injunction to make sure it doesn't happen again? Well, what are the odds you will be called again? What are the odds the next judge and the next pair of lawyers would react the same way? This seems like a pretty idiosyncratic event. So you might not be able to get an injunction. It might even be that Alabama law provides that jurors can affirm instead of swear, and that this judge didn't know that or just ignored it. Or didn't think it applied to you. Do you sue for damages for not being on the jury? What damages? Your time was given back to you. Were you humiliated? Suffer emotional distress? It has to be significant, not just a momentary upset. Maybe you could you sue for $1 in nominal damages as a way of presenting the issue. But the judge and the prosecutor are absolutely immune from any suit for damages. That leaves only the defense lawyer, and he will claim that he should be immune too. He's not even a government actor. So there's a good chance that the court will never reach the merits of your claim. If you use your own name, you have to be prepared for a terrific amount of public abuse and hate mail; you will make yourself notorious. The court might let you sue as Jane Doe, and that usually provides substantial protection, but people will try to figure out who you are, and they may succeed. Quoting CAROL MOORE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I have been rejected as a juror, just this week, after having been selected > and seated because, when I approached the Circuit Court Judge about my > inability to say the oath with "so help me god" at the end of it, he asked > the prosecutor and defense attorney to vote on it (and this is after opening > arguments, mind you). I stated my willingness to serve and to talk an > alternative oath. The defense attorney refused, saying he could not have a > juror who did not believe in god (the case was drunk & disorderly, resisting > arrest). I was removed (which, if one is actually looking for way to duck > jury duty, this one was easy). My question to you all, besides being an > obvious violation the US Constitution, is this worth pursuing? > Carol Moore, list reader > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[1] > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can > (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 Links: ------ [1] /horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailm an%2Flistinfo%2Freligionlaw _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.