REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
I. THIS CASE PRESENTS CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT THIS COURT MUST ADDRESS.
Even though several members of this Court over the past twenty-three years have found this Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence to be seriously deficient, the Court has failed to provide a remedy. As a consequence of this failure,
The failure to provide a clear rule governing the Establishment Clause has not deterred lower federal courts from issuing injunctions requiring government officials to conform their conduct to their constitutional interpretations. Thus, even though the Court of Appeals below recognized that this case was not decided by a "bright-line rule," but upon a trial court's fact-finding discretion, it still proclaimed that "the rule of law" requires the highest judicial officer of a state to put aside his oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of his state, and obey a district court's injunction, unless reversed by a higher court. See 335 F. 3d at 1303 (App. 43a). According to Article VI of the United States Constitution, State officers—judicial, executive, and legislative—take the same oath of office to support the United States Constitution as do federal judges. In so doing, state officers swear allegiance to " Constitution as the supreme law of the land," not allegiance to the
II. MODERN ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE JURIS PRUDENCE IS BANKRUPT.
A. The Lemon Test Is Not A Rule Of Law.
The Court of Appeals below asserted that "Establishment Clause challenges are not decided by bright-line rules, but on a case-by-case basis with the result turning on the specific facts." 335 F.3d at 1288 (App. 13a). Thus, the Court of Appeals' review of the District Court's decision was fact-oriented and limited to a "review [ the] District Court fact findings
First, such invertebrate adjudication provides an altogether too convenient way to reconcile all Establishment Clause decisions without the guidance of a uniform rule. All a court need do is find some factual difference, and every Establishment Clause case may be reconciled with every other one, even when the subject is the same, such as public displays of the Ten Commandments on government property. See id. at 1298-1301 (App. 34a-40a).
Third, this Court's Establishment Clause "flexibility" policy covers up a legal void recognized by numerous courts of