Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Utah unanimously returned that case to the district court for reconsideration in light of recent SCOTUS jurisprudence. The Court found how to
avoid the burden of ruling on tough issues - it overturned the dismissal
of the lawsuit on a narrow ground and invited lower courts to deal with
First Amendment questions again. A narrow decision for the plaintiff is almost exactly what I wished, even though it's disappointing to see it took five years just to find that another set of proceedings is needed.
https://twitter.com/GeorgetownICAP/status/1400799437740548099
https://www.leagle.com/decision/inutco20210603g53
¶26 Although the conclusion reached by the district court and the court of appeals may ultimately prove to be the correct one, we note that in reaching that conclusion both courts relied on the excessive entanglement test established in Lemon. But as we have noted, Lemon has been overtaken by more recent Supreme Court cases. Because the district court applied the excessive entanglement test from Lemon instead of the approach followed in these more recent cases, we vacate the district court‘s decision and remand for any additional proceedings necessary to adequately conduct the Supreme Court‘s current approach to the Establishment Clause. {We note that two of these recent Supreme Court cases (Am.Legion, 139 S. Ct. 2067, and Our Lady of Guadalupe, 140 S. Ct. 2049) were issued after the district court and the court of appeals issued their decisions in this case. So, in vacating the district court‘s order, we are in no way criticizing the district court or the court of appeals for failing to follow the approach identified in those cases.}
¶28 Because the district court relied on the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman—a test that has recently been displaced by the Supreme Court—we vacate the court‘s decision and remand for additional proceedings. On remand, the district court should look to our history, tradition, and precedent to identify core Establishment Clause principles that may be applied to the facts of this case. {We regret that we cannot, at this stage in the litigation, provide the district court with more guidance regarding the application of such a broad standard. But because the standard is so broad and could potentially implicate so many factors, principles, historical practices, and facts, we conclude that it would be better to allow the district court to address this standard in the first instance in response to a renewed motion by one of the parties, should one be filed.}