The Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a case involving officials in Ocala, Florida, who called on residents to attend a prayer vigil that prompted two atheist plaintiffs to claim the city violated the First Amendment.

Justices made the decision without comment, which effectively leaves in place a federal appeals court ruling which found at least one plaintiff was within their rights to sue over the event. The lawsuit will proceed in a lower court.

ERIC ADAMS DEFENDS REMARKS ABOUT PRAYERS IN SCHOOLS, SAYS 'FAITH IS WHO I AM'

Republican-appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas wrote brief opinions over the denial to hear the case. Gorsuch indicated a supportive stance for the city but that the case needed to proceed through lower courts. Thomas dissented and signaled he wanted the high court to take up the case.

Ocala city officials helped organize the prayer vigil in response to shootings in which three children were struck by stray bullets.

The Ocala Police Department posted a letter to social media with co-signatures by the police chief and an activist tied to a local Baptist church. They encouraged the vigil and called for "fervent prayer" to help alleviate crime in the city.

The plaintiffs contend the city violated the Constitution's establishment clause restricting government involvement in religion.

Former President Donald Trump's attorney Jay Sekulow is representing the city and argued that a "claim of personal offense or dismay, without more," does not present the right to sue for First Amendment violations.

Gorsuch appeared to agree in his written opinion, saying, "Most every governmental action probably offends somebody."

"But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation," Gorsuch added.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The two plaintiffs, Art Rojas and Lucinda Hale, ultimately contend the suit is not about offense but about keeping the government separate from organized religion. "It is about protecting prayer from government intrusion and the government from tyranny," the pair argued in court filings.

Last year, the high court gave a sweeping victory for religious rights after it sided with a football coach who was fired for postgame prayers at the midfield line. The decision was 6-3 and noted the "establishment clause does not require the government to single out private religious speech for special disfavor," Gorsuch wrote at the time.