Setback in Wiccan Chaplaincy Case

Religion Clause reports that a California district court judge has ruled against Wiccan chaplain Patrick McCollum’s Establishment Clause challenges to the California prison system’s “five faiths policy”.

In McCollum v. State of California, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11154 (ND CA, Feb. 13, 2009), a California federal district court held that a volunteer Wiccan prison chaplain lacks both traditional standing and taxpayer standing to bring an Establishment Clause challenge to the California prison system’s policy of providing paid chaplains for only five faiths– Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Native American. As to traditional standing, plaintiff is attempting to assert rights of third parties, i.e. Wiccan inmates. As to taxpayer standing, plaintiff is not seeking to stop the expenditure of state funds, but rather to increase or transfer expenditures to have Wiccan chaplains hired as well. Establishment Clause taxpayer standing extends only to cases where a taxpayer is attempting to lessen expenditures.

As you can tell from Howard M. Friedman’s synopsis, this case wasn’t decided by the merits of McCollum’s argument, but on technicalities concerning proper standing. I first reported on this case back in 2007, and McCollum, along with the Lady Liberty League, certainly thought they had proper standing to fight California’s policy of exclusion.

Patrick has challenged this policy stating that it is a violation of the United States Constitution for any government agency to discriminate in employment on the basis of religion, and that it is a violation of the separation of church and state for the state of California to favor or sponsor any religion over another. This case is the result of the state of California’s refusal to accept applications for employment from Wiccans, for open and publicly advertised clergy positions

There has been no word yet on if there will be an appeal to this ruling, or if McCollum will attempt to change his arguments in order to avoid these issues of standing. The idea that Wiccan prison chaplains have no standing to challenge the “five faiths” policy because they aren’t inmates strikes me as a bit of  judicial sophistry. The exclusion of minority faiths (except for Native American religions) from paid chaplaincy positions very much affects the lives Pagan chaplains who currently work for free, not to mention the lives of prisoners who are denied steady and regular access to spiritual guidance. For my readers out there who are lawyers or law students, what do think of this ruling? Was the judge correct? Or was he dodging a thorny issue?