The U.S. House of Representatives will debate a measure on Tuesday that would make litigation over First Amendment issues more difficult and expensive....

he endgame is on. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to debate and possibly vote Tuesday on a bill that would penalize court litigation involving the First Amendment's establishment clause. The legislation, H.R. 2679 -- the "Public Expression of Religion Act" -- would amend a portion of the current U.S. Code and eliminate attorney fees in legal cases where government violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

   The measure was on the congressional backburner until last March when Hill Republicans made it part of the "American Values Agenda," an assortment of bills dealing with everything from parental notification for teens seeking abortions to prohibition on internet gambling. Pundits charged that the move was a pre-election ruse to appeal to Christian evangelicals and distract public attention from more substantive issues like the war in Iraq. Unlike other items on the AVA check-list, though, PERA has become a rallying point for religious and political conservatives, and groups like the American Legion which has launched a nationwide campaign on behalf of the legislation.

   The initiative for PERA has also galvanized support for another bogey man of the religious right, namely, "judicial activism." Denunciations of "activist" judges are common when courts hand down unpopular or complex rulings on hot-button issues like school prayer, abortion rights or teaching Christian creationism in the classroom. The issue has also arisen during recent hearings for U.S. Supreme Court candidates and other appointees to the federal bench. Church-state separationist groups including the American Civil Liberties Union have been accused of using litigation as a fund-raiser and profitable reward for trial attorneys. The American Legion has charged, "There simply is no reasonable basis to support the profiteering in attorney fee awards ordered by judges in these (establishment clause) cases. The very threat of such fees has made elected bodies, large and small, surrender to ... demands to secularly cleanse the public square." Indeed, AANEWS found 27 blogs dedicated to "stopping the ACLU" and 57 web sites.

   American Atheists President Ellen Johnson, though, sees the PERA as a real threat to civil liberties and access to the courts.

   "The supporters of this bill know that they cannot legally stop citizens from challenges government abuses when it comes to the separation of church and state," said Johnson. "So they're trying to achieve that objective by indirect means, like making it prohibitively expensive for private groups and individuals to bear the expense of taking officials to court when they violate the constitution."

   "They're attempting to do by quasi-legal means what they know they can't accomplish otherwise."

   With debated and a possible vote slated for Tuesday, advocacy groups on both sides of the issue have been mobilizing supporters and calling for a flood of E-mails and faxes to Capitol Hill.

[text only]