MARY ANNE SAUSE v. TIMOTHY J. BAUER
Supreme Court of the United States, Per Curiam, June 28, 2018,
First Amendment – An order by police for an individual to stop praying must be based on a “legitimate law enforcement justification”

Facts:
Mary Ann Sause filed a lawsuit against a Kansas police department and city officials for violating her constitutional rights.
In her lawsuit, Sause claimed that two police officers came to her apartment in response to a noise complaint. While there, she claims that she tried to kneel and pray but that one of the officers stopped her.
However, as noted by the Supreme Court, “it is unclear whether the police officers were in petitioner’s apartment at the time in question based on her consent, whether they had some other ground consistent with the Fourth Amendment for entering and remaining there, or whether their entry or continued presence was unlawful. Petitioner’s complaint contains no express allegations on these matters. Nor does her complaint state what, if anything, the officers wanted her to do at the time when she was allegedly told to stop praying.”
A district court judge dismissed the case based on qualified immunity without considering these issues.
When Sause lost on appeal, she sought review from the Supreme Court.

Held: The Court held that there were not enough facts for the judge to decide whether or not the officers had qualified immunity. Sent back for further fact-finding and consideration.

First Amendment – Religion – The First Amendment relates to religion in two ways: it protects the right of people to free exercise of religion and it keeps government from establishing a religion.

First Amendment – First Amendment rights related to religion are not unlimited. There are times where a law-enforcement officer may be justified in preventing someone from praying.

Example from the case: “If an officer places a suspect under arrest and orders the suspect to enter a police vehicle for transportation to jail, the suspect does not have a right to delay that trip by” requesting to pray first.

From the Case: Under the circumstances here, “the First Amendment claim demanded consideration of the ground on which the officers were present in the apartment and the nature of any legitimate law enforcement interests that might have justified an order to stop praying at the specific time in question.” Case sent back for further fact-finding.