Americans_United_v_Prison_Fellowship

Americans_United_v_Prison_Fellowship - 1 The Honorable...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 1 The Honorable Sandra Day OConnor, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States (Ret.), sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-2741 ___________ Americans United for Separation of * Church and State, et al., * * Appellees, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Prison Fellowship Ministries, Inc., * et al., * * Appellants. * ___________ Submitted: February 13, 2007 Filed: December 3, 2007 ___________ Before OCONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.), 1 WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ BENTON, Circuit Judge. Prison Fellowship Ministries, Inc., InnerChange Freedom Initiatives, Inc., and employees of the Iowa Department of Corrections in their official capacities (DOC), appeal the declaratory judgment and equitable relief entered in favor of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, individual inmates, contributors to the-2- inmates telephone accounts, and an Iowa taxpayer. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries , 432 F. Supp. 2d 862 (S.D. Iowa 2006). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, this court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands. I. After a bench trial, this court reviews de novo legal conclusions and mixed questions of law and fact. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. , 48 F.3d 365, 369 (8th Cir. 1995). Factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Robinson v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. , 447 F.3d 1096, 1101 (8th Cir. 2006). Further, a reviewing court oversteps the bounds of its duty under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 52(a) if it undertakes to duplicate the role of the lower court. In applying the clearly erroneous standard to the findings of a district court sitting without a jury, appellate courts must constantly have in mind that their function is not to decide factual issues de novo . Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985), quoting Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc . , 395 U.S. 100, 123 (1969). A. InnerChange offers a residential inmate program within the Newton, Iowa, medium-security facility. InnerChange, and its affiliate Prison Fellowship, are non- profit 501(c)(3) corporations. From September 1, 1999 to June 30, 2007, the InnerChange program was funded in part by Iowa. The purposes of InnerChange are: Reduce the rate of re-offense and the resulting societal costs and Provide a positive influence in prison. InnerChanges ultimate goal is to see ex-prisoners become contributing members of society, by 2 Prison Fellowship and InnerChange assert the district court erred in admitting testimony from a law professor/Ph.D./author to describe Evangelical Christianity. 432 F. Supp. 2d at 872-74. An inquiry into an organizations religious views to determine if it is pervasively sectarian is not only unnecessary but also offensive. It is well established, in numerous other contexts, that courts should refrain from trolling...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 11/15/2011 for the course CJ 471 taught by Professor Christophersmith during the Fall '10 term at Michigan State University.

Page1 / 28

Americans_United_v_Prison_Fellowship - 1 The Honorable...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online