Statement of Boy Scouts of America: Court Rules Boy Scout Jamboree to Go Forward

[fgoodwin 23]

Statement of Boy Scouts of America: Court Rules Boy Scout Jamboree to Go Forward

 

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-04-2007/0004559911&EDATE=

http://tinyurl.com/396mft

 

IRVING, Texas, April 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Boy Scouts of America is pleased that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the ACLU's lawsuit against the Department of Defense for supporting the National Scout Jamboree.

 

For more than 25 years, Boy Scouts have held the National Scout Jamboree every four years at Fort A.P. Hill near Fredericksburg, Virginia. Scouts from all over the country camp together for ten days and participate in activities emphasizing physical fitness, appreciation of the outdoors, and patriotism. Seven Presidents have attended the Jamboree since President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937. The Jamboree grounds at Fort A.P. Hill are open to the public, and an estimated 300,000 visitors attended in 2005 along with 43,000 Scouts and their leaders. The 2010 Jamboree will celebrate the 100th Anniversary of Boy Scouts of America.

 

The United States Congress has found that the military's logistical support for the National Scout Jamboree is an incomparable training opportunity for our armed forces. The Jamboree requires the construction, maintenance, and disassembly of a "tent city" capable of supporting tens of thousands of people for a week or longer.

 

Nevertheless, the ACLU sued the Department of Defense in 1999 over its support for the Jamboree. In 2005, a federal district court in Chicago concluded the Jamboree statute (10 U.S.C. section 2554) was unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause because Scouting has a nonsectarian "duty to God" requirement. DoD appealed the district court's injunction against military support under that statute for the 2010 Jamboree.

 

In today's ruling, the federal Court of Appeals in Chicago reversed the district court's decision, concluding that the taxpayers named as the plaintiffs in the lawsuit did not have standing to sue DoD in the first place.

 

"We are pleased that today's ruling preserves the training opportunity for the military that Congress wanted it to have," said Robert H. Bork, Jr., spokesperson for the Scouts.

 

"Today's decision allows everyone to get back to planning the centennial Jamboree celebrating Boy Scouts' 100th birthday," said George A. Davidson, the attorney for Boy Scouts of America who argued before the Seventh Circuit last year.

 

The case is Winkler v. Gates, No. 05-3451 (7th Cir. Apr. 4, 2007).

 

SOURCE Boy Scouts of America

[Trevorum 24]

 

The opinion (Winkler v. Gates, No. 05-3451) is at

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/1Z0Z95CE.pdf

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

While I'm sure the debate regarding the decision will go on for sometime.

Talking just as myself?

I'm happy that the Jamboree will go ahead.

I'm not sure if I'll attend in 2010?

I do know the Scouts who went with me to the past two had a wonderful time and I'm happy that the opportunity will be there for the next group.

Eamonn.

[fgoodwin 23]

If Nick's link won't work for you, try one of these:

 

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&caseno=&shofile=05-3451_054.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/39o7x9

 

http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/Seventh%20Circuit%20opinion%2005-3451.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/2ywp8g

 

 

[Hunt 11]

I've read the opinion, and it seems to me that this is probably the end of the road for those who want to challenge the military's support of the Jamboree. I think it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would take this case on appeal, and even more unlikely that the decision would be overturned. Although the suit was dismissed on standing grounds, this is not one of those cases where the plaintiffs can go back and find somebody else with a better claim to standing--the decision essentially says that no private citizen has standing to challenge the Jamboree statute.

By the way, the court also gives a pretty clear indication of how it would rule on the Establishment Clause argument if there were standing, and it's pretty obvious that the plaintiffs would have lost on the merits as well.

[evmori 11]

This could be a real precedent setter for all those other case the ACLU has filed against the BSA.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Which other cases, Ed? This was dismissed on standing, that doesn't affect any other case.

 

Hunt, this was a 3-judge review, I'm pretty sure any appeal would go to the full 7th circuit, not the supreme court. As it was dismissed as not meeting taxpayer standing, it might be possible to pursue a new lawsuit by someone directly affected, such as Darryl Lambert applying to attend and being turned down.

[evmori 11]

San Diego for one.

 

And if Mr. Lambert wanted to attend Jamboree, he would be more than welcome. It is open to the public.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt 11]

I think an en banc rehearing is unlikely, since there was no dissent in the case--in fact, the concurring opinion went even farther than the majority in asserting that there was no standing. Realisticly, this is probably the end of the line for this case. And, as Ed points out, the Jamboree is open to the public--a point emphasized in the opinion, by the way--so I think the kind of standing Merlyn suggests is unlikely to succeed. What's more, with the Supreme Court we have now, BSA would very likely prevail on the merits even if some plaintiff could show standing--the Court would simply say that the Jamboree benefits the military, that the entanglement with religion is minimal, and thus that it passes Constitutional muster. Of course, somebody may decide to waste his (and BSA's) money to pursue it, but the chances of prevailing are virtually nil--just as, for another example, are Newdow's chances of ever getting the Supreme Court (as currently constituted) to declare that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutuional, no matter how strong his arguments may be.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt, the BSA didn't spend any money on this case (unless it wanted to); it was against the Dept. of Defense. And Lambert would only be allowed to watch, he wouldn't gain the full benefits of attending as a scout.

[evmori 11]

And Lambert would only be allowed to watch, he wouldn't gain the full benefits of attending as a scout.

 

I have never been to Jamboree so I don't know what is available to the general public but I would think there is lots of stuff for Lambert and any other non-BSA member to participate in.

 

Weak argument.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt 11]

That's right, the case was against DOD, so it will be MY money that will be wasted if a futile appeal is taken.

While there are legal arguments on both sides, the chances that the current Supreme Court would strike down the Jamboree law on the basis that members of the public can't participate fully is vanishingly remote. Really, if I were the plaintiffs, I would be concerned about appealing the case for fear that the Supreme Court would take up the reasoning of the concurring judge on standing.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Yes Hunt, YOUR money will be wasted on court costs; I note you aren't concerned about MY money being spent on an organization that excludes atheists, being paid for by all taxpayers, including atheists. I doubt all the litigation would exceed what the DoD spends on one jamboree.

[SSScout 1616]

The Jambo can be, I would aver, divided into four types of people. There is (are?) the pro staff, the volunteer staff, the Scout participants and the visitors. And the military support staff, I guess. Five types.

 

It is, IMHO, one of the best uses of military spending around.

 

The Scout Participants are selected by a competitive method. Not everybody who applies can attend. I think (correct me here) but each national region/council selects the Scouts that attend from their area. Draw from a hat? Write an essay? Know somebody who knows somebody? The method is unknown to me, but in my attendance last time, I was led to believe that each area had their own criterion for selection.

And any one else can show up and attend for the day, and participate in anything for which you feel like standing in line.

 

Upwards of 43,000 last time, plans for 75,000 in 2010??? Whoa!

 

Hope to see you there!

[John-in-KC 311]

I've spun off a separate thread

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=155917

Cost of Jamboree Attendance

 

instead of hijacking this one...(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)