The full title of the article is Neil Gorsuch cast doubt on a group of atheists' lawsuit over a Florida city's prayer vigil, saying everything done by the government 'probably offends somebody', and that is certainly true! Poor offended atheists.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to block a lawsuit brought by a group of atheists against a Florida city's prayer vigil, but Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the group had a right to sue.

"Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody," Gorsuch, who agreed with the court's decision not to intervene in the case, said in a statement, referencing a concurring opinion he wrote in a 2019 Supreme Court case involving the separation of church and state.

"No doubt, too, that offense can be sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise," Gorsuch continued. "But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation."

...Gorsuch, in his statement, said the district court should reconsider whether the atheists had standing, noting that the Supreme Court "has never endorsed the notion that an 'offended observer' may bring an Establishment Clause claim."

"It didn't matter that the plaintiff went to the vigil knowing that she would be offended," Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote of the lower court's decision. "What mattered was that prayers reached her ears."

While Gorsuch did appear sympathetic to the city of Ocala's request to dismiss the lawsuit, he agreed that the legal battle should play out in the lower courts.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court's decision, saying the justices should have reviewed the case to settle the so-called offended observer theory.

"I have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the 'offended observer' theory of standing applied below," Thomas, widely considered the most conservative justice, said....