https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/politics/ocala-florida-prayer-case-supreme-court/index.html
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up an appeal brought by a Florida city that was sued by individuals who argued it had violated the Constitution when it held a prayer vigil in 2014 in response to a local shooting.
The city of Ocala, Florida, had asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the case, arguing that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. The city said the justices should reject the atheists’ argument for why they had been injured with the prayer ceremony, making it appropriate for courts to hear their case.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision not to take up the case. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a statement with the denial but did not dissent from the court’s move.
Thomas wrote that he had “serious doubts” about the atheists’ arguments for why they should be allowed to sue Ocala and said the Supreme Court should examine questions around the so-called “offended observer standing” theory, which allowed the case to proceed at the lower court level.
“We should have granted certiorari to review whether respondents had standing to bring their claims,” he wrote.
Gorsuch, however, expressed sympathy to the city’s arguments and said that its request that the justices intervene now was “understandable.” But he saw “no need for the Court’s intervention at this juncture.”
“Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody,” he wrote. “But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation.”
I'm mildly surprised that other than Thomas and Gorsuch (sort of) none of the other conservatives were interested in taking up this case.
The other Justices didn't say they aren't interested in ever taking up this case. They just said (well, implicitly) that they don't want to hear an interlocutory appeal now. The Supreme Court, other than Thomas, tends to be very active in trying to reduce the number of cases it hears. They would likely hear an appeal once there's a judgment in the underlying case if the judgment is against the city, and the appellate court upholds it, but they won't hear the case until and unless they feel like they have to (so they'll probably never hear it if the lower court and the appellate court ultimately find for the city).
