## Facts

- Robin Murray-O’Hair, an atheist, appeared for jury duty in Travis County, Texas, and refused to take a pre-voir dire oath that referenced God.
- Judge Guy Herman offered an affirmation as an alternative; after a separate hearing, he also offered an affirmation that omitted any reference to God.
- Murray-O’Hair refused to swear or affirm, asserting that an affirmation was “just as religious as an oath.”
- Judge Herman warned that refusal could result in civil contempt; after continued refusal, he held Murray-O’Hair in contempt and ordered her jailed, later releasing her on bond.
- Murray-O’Hair and the Society of Separationists, Inc. sued Judge Herman and county officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of Free Exercise rights and seeking damages and prospective relief.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and imposed sanctions on plaintiffs.
- A Fifth Circuit panel concluded the judge’s conduct violated Free Exercise rights, held the judge immune from damages, and issued declaratory relief governing future similar situations.
- The Fifth Circuit reheard the case en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek prospective declaratory or injunctive relief regulating future handling of jurors who refuse both oaths and affirmations.
2. Whether, given judicial immunity and justiciability limits, a federal court may issue forward-looking declaratory relief directing how a state judge must respond to similar future disputes.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed judgment for defendants without reaching the underlying Free Exercise merits.
- The court held plaintiffs lacked standing to seek prospective declaratory or injunctive relief because the likelihood of a similar future injury was speculative.
- The court vacated the panel’s declaratory judgment that had directed state-court procedures for handling similar refusals.
- Damages relief against the judge remained unavailable due to absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts within jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing for prospective relief requires a real and immediate threat of repeated injury; speculative recurrence is insufficient for declaratory or injunctive remedies.
- When damages claims are barred (including by absolute judicial immunity), plaintiffs must still independently satisfy standing and an actual controversy requirement to obtain prospective relief.
- Absolute judicial immunity generally bars damages claims against judges for acts performed in their judicial capacity and within their jurisdiction, even if the acts are alleged to be unconstitutional.
- An en banc court may dispose of a case on standing grounds and decline to decide constitutional merits, leaving nonessential merits analysis without precedential force in the circuit.

## Conclusion

The en banc Fifth Circuit set aside the panel’s forward-looking declaratory remedy and resolved the case on justiciability grounds, holding that plaintiffs failed to show a non-speculative likelihood of recurrence sufficient for prospective relief, while damages against the judge were barred by absolute judicial immunity.


Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Herman, 959 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir. 1992)