It’s happening across the country – from New York to California. 
 
Students singled out for wearing a rosary to school.  School officials want the rosary removed – kept out of sight – because they claim it’s a gang symbol.  The students we represent don’t have anything to do with gangs – they want to wear the rosary as a symbol of their faith.
 
Now, some very good news in our latest effort to protect the constitutional rights of public school students. This case is on the West Coast.
 
We represent Maurace Zetino and his family.  Maurace is a 10th grade student at Casa Grande High School in Petaluma, California.  Maurace, who was “Student of the Month” for January 2011, has been wearing a rosary to school on the outside of his clothing for the past few months as an expression of his religious beliefs.  He received the rosary during a confirmation retreat with his Catholic parish.
 
In April 2011, school officials told him that he could no longer wear his rosary to school because the school deemed the rosary to be a gang symbol.  Maurace is not a gang member and he wears the rosary only for religious reasons.
 
We immediately sent a demand letter to school officials to ensure that Maurace could continue to wear his rosary without interference and that no negative comments would appear in his school record regarding his wearing of the rosary.
 
We put the school on notice.  Our demand letter was clear:  “Maurace has a First Amendment right to wear openly and publicly his rosary” to school.  “Maurace wears the rosary, a form of symbolic speech, to convey his faith in God and to identify himself as a Christian and a Catholic.”
 
We urged the school district to take immediate corrective action or face a federal lawsuit.
 
I am pleased to report that the school officials complied with our demands.  The school’s attorney responded saying that Maurace “is not prohibited from wearing his rosary at school” and that “no disciplinary action concerning his wearing the rosary is reflected in his school records.”
 
After we notified the Zetino family about the victory, Maurace’s mother emailed our Senior Attorney Edward White and said:  “We are very proud of our son for taking a stand on this issue.  From the very beginning, Maurace knew what had happened to him was wrong.  Maurace and I would like to thank you and the ACLJ – we’re so glad that Maurace found you.”
 
We are, too.  And we’re delighted with the outcome of this case.
 
Our friends at the California-based Advocates for Faith and Freedom joined us in representing Maurace and his family in this matter.
 
This is the fourth time in the last year that the ACLJ has successfully protected the constitutional rights of public school students to wear religious jewelry to school as an expression of their faith. 

Last year, we filed a lawsuit in a New York federal court to obtain a court order to ensure that our client could wear his rosary to school.  We also achieved positive results through demand letters this past year to ensure that a student in Colorado could wear his cross to public school and to ensure that a student in Texas could wear her rosary to public school.

Across America, there will be observances this day – with the 60th annual National Day of Prayer being celebrated coast-to-coast.  That is certainly great news.  But what is especially gratifying is that the atheist organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), has failed to put a stop to this national observance.

Just last month, a federal appeals court overturned a decision by a federal district court in Wisconsin that declared the National Day of Prayer presidential proclamation unconstitutional – a proclamation that is issued annually by the president.  The 2011 proclamation issued by President Obama is posted here.

In the decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Court’s Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook rejected an argument by FFRF that they could bring a federal lawsuit because the National Day of Prayer made them feel excluded and unwelcome.  Echoing an argument made by the ACLJ in our amicus brief, the court concluded: “Hurt feelings differ from legal injury,” and all plaintiffs ultimately allege is “disagreement with the President’s action.”  The decision is posted here.  Our amicus brief, in which we represented nearly 70 members of Congress, is posted here. 

The appeals court correctly concluded that FFRF does not have the right to silence the speech they don’t agree with and that the organization lacked legal standing to challenge the National Day of Prayer.

While this decision represents a victory for this time-honored tradition, FFRF has already said it plans to appeal that decision. 

And, you should know, that FFRF is currently challenging the constitutionality of the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance.  FFRF is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case out of New Hampshire and overturn a lower court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Pledge. 

So, FFRF wants to get rid of the National Day of Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase ‘under God.’

This is absurd.  These challenges not only are legally flawed, but clog our court systems and represent a waste of  judicial resources. 

We’re standing up for the National Day of Prayer and the Pledge.  We will file briefs backing the National Day of Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance as these flawed challenges and appeals continue.

On this National Day of Prayer, I want you to know that we’re standing up to groups like FFRF, the ACLU, and others – groups that want to re-write our nation’s history and heritage.

Check out this year’s theme for the National Day of Prayer with this video produced by the National Day of Prayer Task Force.

I am pleased to report the successful resolution to a lawsuit we filed last year on behalf of our client, Edwin Graning. 

Graning was a driver for the Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS), a transit company which provides transportation services to residents in nine Texas counties. Graning’s primary duty at CARTS was to drive passengers to medical facilities.

In January, 2010, Graning was assigned to drive a passenger to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Austin for an early morning appointment.

Concerned that that the passenger was seeking to have an abortion, Graning, an ordained Christian minister, called his supervisor and told her that he could not undertake the assignment in good conscience.  The supervisor responded by saying, “then you are resigning.”  Graning replied that he was not resigning; rather, that he “could not be a part of this.”

Graning then received a call from a dispatcher.  After telling the dispatcher that he could not conscientiously drive the passenger to Planned Parenthood, she instructed Graning to return the bus to the yard.

Graning was then fired.

Last summer, we sued CARTS in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.  Our lawsuit is posted here.  We alleged that firing Graning without even attempting to accommodate his religious beliefs was a violation of his rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I am happy to tell you that the case has now been successfully resolved.  After a period of legal discovery, CARTS has agreed to pay Graning an amount which we believe fairly compensates the financial losses Graning suffered as a result of being fired.

This is not just a great resolution to Graning’s case, it’s an important victory for the rights of conscience everywhere.  It sends the clear and unequivocal message that pro-life employees cannot be discriminated against based on their religious beliefs.  It reminds employers that they cannot ignore or dismiss requests for religious accommodation by their employees.

Since day one, the ACLJ has been committed to defending the conscience rights of Christians in both the public and private sectors.  The successful resolution in this case is but one more example of where our commitment has made a significant difference.

They are the best of the best.  U.S. Navy SEAL commandos – part of an elite special forces team that took down the world’s most sought after terrorist, Osama bin Laden.

At the American Center for Law and Justice, one of our primary offices is located in Virginia – on the campus of Regent University in Virginia Beach.

That happens to be the home of SEAL Team 6 – the unit that went into Pakistan – facing great danger – on a mission to hunt down and eliminate bin Laden.

In the Norfolk-Virginia Beach area, the military plays such a vital role. It’s home to one of the largest Naval bases in the world and those who live there know first hand that SEAL Team 6 gets the call for the tough jobs, the most dangerous, as shown in this local television news report from WAVY.

It’s called SEAL Team 6, but is formally known as Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DEVGRU for short. It is based at Oceana Naval Air Station’s Dam Neck Annex in Virginia Beach.

We’re extremely proud of our military – especially the courage, dedication, and commitment shown by the commandos of SEAL Team 6.  At the ACLJ, we have a number of military veterans who now work with us – military veterans who understand the sacrifices made by all members of the military – especially the elite forces who are called upon for the most dangerous missions.  

Kudos to SEAL Team 6 and all the men and women who serve in the U.S. Military.

The Navy’s top SEAL, Rear Adm. Edward G. Winters III, sent a message to his team after the successful mission in Pakistan saying “that handful of courageous men, of strong will and character, have changed the course of history.”

And he added:  “Stand tall – more importantly, be humble, be the quiet professional. This is what makes our organization special. Be extremely careful about operational security. The fight is not over.”

Osama bin Laden is dead.  Al-Qaida is not.