|
June 23, 2003
Union
of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Welcomes Supreme Court Decision
Letting Lower Court Ruling Approving Tenafly Eruv Stand
Today, the
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America welcomed a
decision by the United States Supreme Court denying a petition by
the Town of Tenafly, New Jersey through which Tenafly sought to
have the high court overturn the decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals striking down Tenafly’s attempt to dissuade Orthodox Jews
from moving into that town by denying them permission to construct
an “eruv.”
The legal dispute arises from Tenafly’s determination to prevent
Orthodox Jews who have recently moved to the town from erecting an
“eruv,” a religious demarcation of area that allows Orthodox Jews
to freely exercise their religious liberty to observe the Sabbath.
According to Jewish Law, an Orthodox Jew may not convey moveable
items from private property to public property (and vice versa) on
the Sabbath without a symbolic demarcation of the area allowing
him to do so. Such a demarcation can be accomplished by utilizing
existing utility poles and wires, with minimal additions
unrecognizable to the casual observer. The demarcation, or “eruv,”
would allow parents of young children to be able to push strollers
or the elderly or disabled to use wheelchairs and attend synagogue
on the Sabbath and participate in communal prayers. Despite having
erected the “eruv” with the consent of Bergen County, the Town of
Tenafly denied the Jews permission to use its right-of-way for the
“eruv” and ordered it taken down. The denial appears to have been
motivated by a desire to dissuade Orthodox Jews from moving into
Tenafly in larger numbers.
A federal trial judge upheld the town’s actions, that ruling was
reversed by an appeals court which stated that - in denying
permission to erect the eruv on the town’s utility poles while
other items could be erected on those same poles for non-religious
reasons -Tenafly was “selectively” applying this ordinance in a
manner that “violates the neutrality [toward religion] principle”
required by the Constitution because it “singles out the [Orthodox
Jews’] religiously motivated conduct for discriminatory
treatment.” The appeals court ordered the district court to enter
an injunction barring the town from denying the eruv.
Nathan Diament stated that “the Orthodox Jewish community is
deeply gratified that the federal appeals court recognized
Tenafly’s actions for what they were – religious bigotry. By
denying the town’s petition to further appeal the case, the
Supreme Court has implicitly agreed with the appeals court’s
understanding. The Tenafly eruv will stay up, a message has been
sent by America’s courts that the construction of an eruv is
perfectly constitutional; religious bigotry has been again
repudiated and America is the better for it.”
###
|
