2003 AGN APR 01 I07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CITY OF BURBANK DENNIS A BARLOW OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney 275 East Olive Avenue • P.O. Box 6459 • Burbank, California 91510-6459 JULI CHRISTINE SCOTT 818.238.5700 • 818.238.5724 FAX Chief Assistant City Attorney March 6, 2003 Writers Direct Dial (818)238-5707 City Attorney 3191 Katella Avenue Los Alamitos, CA 90720-5600 Re: Request for Amicus Support - Rubin v. City of Burbank (City Council Invocations) Dear City Attorney, The City of Burbank is seeking your assistance in support of an amicus curiae Petition to the United States Supreme Court in the matter of the City's ongoing litigation regarding City Council invocations. You may recall that the City of Burbank was sued by Mr. Iry Rubin after he attended a City Council meeting and heard a 67 second religious invocation given by a member of the Burbank Ministerial Association. This particular invocation heard by Mr. Rubin ended with the phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ". Mr. Rubin successfully sought injunctive relief against the City of Burbank to prohibit the City from permitting "sectarian" prayer at the City Council meetings. The City appealed and the trial court's decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in a published decision (Rubin v. City of Burbank (2002) 101 Cal.AppAth 1194, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 867). The City's Petition for Review by the California Supreme Court was denied. The City of Burbank will file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on March 18, 2003. The issue of legislative invocations is one of national significance to hundreds if not thousands of cities and other public agencies throughout the country. The practice is a time-honored tradition going back to the Founding Fathers, and strongly endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in its decision in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 782 (1983). The California Supreme Court has let stand a published appellate decision which in effect misinterprets and in essence modifies the Marsh decision by requiring the legislative body to determine whether a legislative invocation is "sectarian", and if so, prohibiting that "sectarian" prayer from being given at the City Council meeting. This not only unnecessarily entangles the legislative body with religion, but requires the body to censor the content of these otherwise legitimate prayers on the basis of the viewpoint expressed therein. Those whose beliefs compel them or who choose to invoke a reference to a specific religious figure must be prohibited from participating, while those whose beliefs are reflected in a more generic prayer are allowed to participate. The