*1 434 judgment, order, part it 2. or court finds The there. arrested
was from; appealed constitu- thereof what to understand difficult complains Pe- cf. petitioner tional error (United 3. The court Court of petition that noth- in his admits titioner Circuit) Appeals for the Fourth this a result of ing as found or was appeal to which the is taken. illegal it- and of search search. An. certify copies clerk is directed to peti- require reversal of does not self opinion judgment peti- this must Petitioner conviction. tioner’s respondent. tioner a obtained as that evidence demonstrate illegal was used search of this result See at his trial. a conviction secure Mapp 643, Ohio, 81 S.Ct. 367 Further, (1961). 1684, hearing testimony given was at police did to show that
sufficient the house to search a warrant fact have petition- arrest
and a warrant for er. Murray Madalyn et al. O’HAIR contends that Petitioner also interrogated being in he without was al. Thomas O. PAINE et rights. Arizo Miranda v. of his formed Civ. A. No. A-69-CA-109. 1602, 436, L. na, 16 (1966), applicable 694 Ed.2d United States District begun persons whose trials had Texas, D.W. Jersey, 13, v. New June Johnson Austin Division. 16 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Dec. 1969. (1966). convicted on Petitioner was Concurring Opinion Dec. 1969. police April and therefore the Opinion Concurring Dec. 1969. give required petitioner the does, warnings. The evidence
Miranda
however, petitioner disclose Further, warnings.
given a number of
petitioner and the record has not any he not disclose that statements
does involuntary rea for other
made were his Petitioner has not
son.
petition any violations constitutional rights.
his foregoing reasons, ad-
For the
judged petition ordered that corpus be dismissed writ of habeas
and the relief denied. appeal petitioner If wishes thereof, may
judgment any part he do by filing court the clerk
so appeal. to file the notice Failure days appeal may re-
notice of within right appeal. denial sult in a shall
The notice state taking party parties
appeal;
Madalyn O’Hair, Murray pro per. Jr., Baltimore, Anderson, James H. Md., plaintiff.
Seagal Wheatley, Atty., V. U. S. San Antonio, Tex., for defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Judge. ROBERTS, District brought Madalyn action This an O’Hair, Murray Richard F. O’Hair and Inc., Society Separationists, against Paine, individually, Thomas O. and as Administrator of the National Space Aeronautics and Administration seeking an [NASA]. enjoining (1) doing order from NASA abridges act whatsoever which plaintiffs’ es- freedom or Christianity re- as the official tablishes ligion States, (2) en- the United forcing any regulation policy or which promulgated has heretofore plain- such above effect. restraining temporary tiffs also seek timing flight during Apollo 8 “from enjoining the defendants order for reli- Christmas Season was chosen doing any restricts whatsoever act gious purposes. re- abridges plaintiffs’ freedom from enjoining NASA ligion specifically government has filed a motion personnel its administrator plaintiffs’ dismiss the suit for the rea- directing permitting re- from further son, among others, complaint *3 es- ligious activities, and or ceremonies of for fails to state a cause action reading of the sectarian pecially the granted. relief can be For the reasons prayer religion from Bible and Christian agrees. below, set so out this Court all in to space relation in recitation activity.” flight Jurisdic- space future I. upon 28 U.S. is founded tion of the case alleged plaintiffs The have that their 1346(a) (2). C. § right of freedom of Amendment plaintiffs, Upon request the of religion abridged. has been This Court in three-judge ac was convened court pleadings the to has searched vain Choate, 404 F. v. with Jackson cordance allegation find The coercion. Cir., 1968). con (5 That 2d 910 plaintiffs neither forced do have been Judge sisting States Circuit of United doing anything any- prohibited nor Thornberry, Dis States Homer United thing. Judge Spears, A. and Unit trict Adrian Actually, plaintiffs the have Roberts, Judge Jack ed District States alleged religion their freedom of that prop that case determined abridged has but rather that their been three-judge v. erly matter. Sardino religion freedom from York, 361 of New Federal Reserve Bank abridged. Apparently, plaintiffs the are 1966); Pennsylvania (2 Cir., F.2d 106 claiming they right not to that have a be Pennsyl Utility Commission v. Public religion during exposed they were Co., 86 S. 382 Railroad vania flights. televising Apollo the 8 (1965). L.Ed.2d 324 Ct. 15 This, however, does not amount to coer Judge accordingly remanded to case was cion, necessary and it is a coer show for decision. Roberts abridgment effect cive to constitute an atheists, plaintiffs The various Abington of the Free Exercise Clause. sep- deists, complete and believers Schempp, School District v. They have aration of church and state. 10 L.Ed.2d bring right in two the suit asserted (1962). status; separate grounds: (1) taxpayer alleged plaintiffs that have (2) citizenship status. perform the ordered to astronauts were plaintiffs petition, the In their have may religious these There activities. during Apollo 8 and that the here, ir an element of coercion but Flights, Apollo Space astro- certain plaintiffs must relevant because the nauts, the or- with the consent or under Free Exercise show that their own religious NASA, engage in ders of did rights abridged not another’s. attempt in an to establish ceremonies litigant may his con A assert own religion religion the as the Christian rights stitutional or immunities. United the United As a factual basis States. Raines, 17, 22, 80 S. claim, plaintiffs for such a the have al- (1959). Ct. leged (1) reli- the various gious made on televi- statements were II. space; by sion the astronauts while religious (2) Abington items of a nature In School District various supra, Supreme spacecraft, Schempp, in- Court thus were carried distinguishing volving expenditure federal be- test fashioned a funds; (3) items were involvements certain tween forbidden (4) deposited moon; contacts and those on state rights. per- prohibited have Clause To astro- the Establishment taking nauts from surely these items would mits: rights, violated their have own may as follows: be stated The test flight space unless of course the would primary purpose and the are the what jeopardized. have been is If either the enactment? effect of reli- or inhibition the advancement have gion exceeds the enactment then expense that NASA incurred some in ac legislative power scope as circum- commodating the astronauts in mat That the Constitution. scribed expendi ter and that this was a federal say the strictures to withstand religion, ture furtherance of thus con Clause the Establishment travening the Establishment Clause. legislative purpose be a secular must However, Abington, supra, both ad- primary that neither effect and a Allen, supra, cases stand for religion. P. nor inhibits vances *4 proposition governmental activity which p. 83 S.Ct. religion permissible benefits is if its primary purpose of Central in Board of Education is secular rather than And 236, Allen, religious primary if its Dist No. effect nei School 1060, religion. Justice nor 20 L.Ed.2d ther advances inhibits 88 S.Ct. concurring opinion in a Harlan stated purpose of is NASA obvious: it following: the astronauts, solely is to accommodate the governmental ac- contested where legitimate especially perfectly a task tivity nonreli- to achieve is calculated when one considers seriousness of the gious purposes within otherwise Literally, effort, mission. sisting a national con- State, competence and where of the people, of of thousands several activity the State not involve does dollars, years, billion and ten had been directly significantly in the “so expended goals achieve of the give rise sectarian as realm of the space program. The astronauts were a * * * and in- influences divisive key pro- factor in of the success this freedom,” Abington, 374 hibitions gram, they undertaking not it is 83 S.Ct. U.S. at great at mission risk to their own lives. religious by clauses forbidden approaching It is the ludicrous to hold the First Amendment. that NASA could not have incurred this guidelines, expense upon in Relying minor and incidental order the above gov- greater may that the that the astronauts attain must conclude this Court abridge peace of mind in not the Establish- this serious undertak- ernment did ing. ment under the facts Clause by plaintiffs. have also among religious deposited begin with, that the items To purely reli moon were some which had on of the astronauts while statements significance gious by and that this violated made the astronauts television were However, representatives the Establishment Clause. not as as individuals and many public government. there are ceremonies which There of the United God, nothing in them references to have some pleadings indicate is Furthermore, pro these have held not to con to have otherwise. making trary In to the Establishment Clause. the astronauts hibited Engel Vitale, 421, 82 S.Ct. a vio have been these statements would (1962), religious rights. Justice lation of their own Black said the reasoning ap can be This same nothing religious in the deci- There is of course plied personal items car to the by space here is inconsistent sion reached that of the ried the astronauts pro that children and flights; clearly the fact school with conduct encouraged officially to ex- are by others their own tected freedom reciting season, approaching the absurd to country press for our love say is a of the Estab- Dec- that this violation as the documents such historical religious lishment Clause because Independence con- laration by significance Deity date. The First that references tains singing require does State officially espoused Amendment anthems religion, profes- composer’s neu- to be hostile but include the Being, or Supreme tral. in a of faith sions many fact that reasons, it For all the above stated public life of in our manifestations hereby ordered the motion to dis- that patriotic cere- Such God. belief miss for failure to state a cause ac- resem- true no monial occasions bear be, granted. hereby, tion and is unquestioned blance York SPEARS, Judge (concur- New that the State exercises District sponsored ring). in this instance. hereby I concur the Memorandum Clauson, in Zorach v. And 312, 313, Opinion prepared by Jack Honorable 679, 683, 96 L.Ed. Roberts, filed on December Douglas Justice said: however, Amendment, does Judge THORNBERRY, (con- Circuit every aspects say and all curring). *5 separation shall be of Church hereby concur I in the Memorandum t Rather, studiously de i State. Opinion prepared by Honorable Jack manner, ways, specific fines Roberts filed on December or un there shall no concert dependency other. ion one mat the common That is sense ter. Otherwise the state hostile, aliens each
would be other— unfriendly. suspicious, even pay required to could not be Churches Municipalities property taxes. even po permitted render not be would protection to lice or fire KIRBY, Petitioner, Robert Woodford helped parish groups. Policemen who worship places into their ioners COX, Superintendent, Virginia J. D. State Pray violate the would Constitution. Penitentiary, Respondent. legislative halls; ap our ers in (Re). Civ. A. No. 69-C-19-L messages peals Almighty United States District Executive; proclama Chief Virginia, W. D. making Thanksgiving Day hol tions Lynchburg Division. iday; help court “so me in our God” March room oaths—these all other refer Almighty run ences to the
through rituals, laws, public our our flouting
our ceremonies would be A fastidious athe Amendment. agnostic object ist or could even
supplication with which Court
opens each session: “God save
United States and this honorable
Court.” regard scheduling of
With flight Apollo during the Christmas