Suit Challenges Cross Decals On Sheriff's Office Patrol Cars

The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit yesterday against a Texas sheriff who placed 8-inch tall Latin cross decals on six county law enforcement vehicles.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Brewster County, Texas, (WD TX, filed 3/2/2016), says that Sheriff Ronny Dodson placed the decals on patrol vehicles because he "wanted God’s protection over his deputies."  The suit contends that this violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as well as Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas Constitution.  FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Court Rejects Establishment Clause Challenge To Bladensburg Cross

In American Humanist Association v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, (D MD, Nov. 30, 2015), a Maryland federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a 40-foot tall Veteran's Memorial in the shape of a cross. The so-called Bladensburg Cross was erected in 1925 by the American Legion at the intersection of two highways. The original ownership of the land on which it sits was unclear, but the land was eventually transferred to the state.  As Veterans Memorial Park, it is now also surrounded by other monuments. The court concluded that the cross does not have the effect of endorsing religion:

the predominant and nearly exclusive use of the Monument has been for annual commemorative events held on Memorial Day and Veterans Day....  In light of this history and context, of which a reasonable observer would be aware, the Monument "evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles...." The evocation of foreign graves is particularly relevant here because, unlike crosses challenged in other cases, the Monument explicitly memorializes forty-nine servicemen who died in Europe during World War I, and the "cross developed into a central symbol of the American overseas cemetery" during and following World War I....

The Baltimore Sun reports on the decision.

Challenge To City's Removal of Cross Dismissed Because of Improper Plaintiffs

In Citizens of Grand Haven v. City of Grand Haven, (MI Cir. Ct., June 9, 2015), a Michigan trial court dismissed a suit that was seeking to require city council to reverse its earlier decision to limit access to Dewey Hill and convert the 48-foot cross on it into a Coast Guard anchor. (See prior posting.) Without getting to the merits of plaintiffs' free speech and religious discrimination claims, the court found that none of the plaintiffs, as named, were proper.  It held that plaintiff "Citizens of Grand Haven" did not qualify as an unincorporated voluntary association since it had no organizational form or decision-making process.  It was merely the group of people who had signed a petition.  The court went on to hold that the individual "John Doe" plaintiffs were not entitled to proceed anonymously.  The court applied a 5-factor test that had previously been developed by the courts for determining when proceeding under a pseudonym is appropriate. MLive reports on the decision.

UPDATE: On June 12, the lawsuit was refiled with named plaintiffs. (MLive 6/15).

Plaintiffs Say LA County Continues To Use Seal With Cross In Violation of Agreement

According to the Los Angeles Times,, yesterday a group of Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders in Los Angeles filed papers in federal court alleging that Los Angeles County is violating an agreement it entered in connection with a pending lawsuit challenging the new design of the county seal.  In February 2014, the religious leaders, represented by the ACLU, sued challenging the redesign that added a cross atop the depiction of the San Gabriel Mission that is already on the county seal. (See prior posting.)  Last June, the county agreed to stop using the new seal while the litigation was pending.  In yesterday's motion, plaintiffs claim that the seal containing the cross is still on the county supervisor's website, a cover sheet for a recent Board of Supervisors meeting transcript and a program for the county's "Women of the Year" luncheon.  The county contends that all of these are materials that were in place before the June agreement. The ACLU says that materials for every new Board of Supervisor's meeting involves a new use of the county seal.

Citizens Suit Challenges City's Removal of Cross From Dunes Area

A group of Grand Haven, Michigan residents filed suit on Wednesday in state court seeking to force the city to rescind a resolution it adopted in January to remove a 48-foot tall cross from Dewey Hill-- a critical dune. The complaint (full text) in Citizens of Grand Haven v. City of Grand Haven, (MI Cir. Ct., filed 4/1/2015), contends that the city's action violates the free speech and equal protection clauses of the Michigan Constitution.

According to a Nov. 2014 MLive article:

The cross first was erected on Dewey Hill in December 1964 and now only is raised 10 times a year with sponsorship from Grand Haven's First Reformed Church for Worship on the Waterfront. 

During the Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival, the cross is converted to an anchor.

The most recent series of events was triggered by a letter from Americans United which, under the public forum status of Dewey Hill, asked to put up a series of displays marking Festivus, promoting LBGT pride and marriage equality, promoting atheist rights, and promoting reproductive choice.

This led city council in January to pass a resolution to limit access to Dewey Hill and convert the cross into an anchor. (Jan. 6, 2015 MLive article).

The lawsuit filed this week contends:

Defendant's actions in singling out the Dewey Hill Cross, the target of the anti-religious group, and keeping the Coast Guard Anchor, the non-religious part of the monument, constitutes an action regulating speech in a traditional public free speech forum and discrimination on the sole basis of religion, in violation of the Michigan Constitution and Civil Rights Act.

The Grand Haven Tribune has more on the lawsuit.

City Settles Suit Challenging Christian Symbols At Veterans' Memorial

The King, North Carolina city council voted 3-2 on Tuesday to settle a federal lawsuit that had been filed against it in 2012 claiming that the design and flag policy of a Veterans' Memorial built by the city unconstitutionally advanced Christianity. (See prior posting.)  According to Stokes News, under the settlement the city will repeal a policy which resulted in a Christian flag often being flown on one of the flag poles at the memorial.  Under the settlement, the city has also already removed the statute of a soldier kneeling before a cross that was part of the memorial. The city will also pay $500,000 in legal fees to Americans United, and $1 in nominal damages to the plaintiff in Hewett vs. City of King.  The city agreed to the settlement when it became clear that the cost of going to trial might reach $2 million and greatly exceed the city's insurance policy limits, and that the city might lose its insurance coverage.  Councilman Brian Carico, one of the two voting against the settlement, said:

... before I am a council member, before I am a husband, before I am a father or a brother or a son, ... I am a Christian.... Every word and deed I do is supposed to be in the name of Jesus Christ.... I can’t vote to remove anything from that memorial because the intent is not there for anyone to be offended. Every veteran that memorial honors took an oath of God and country and they knew what God they were speaking of.

State University Reaches Compromise With Football Team Members On Wearing Cross Decal

Inquisitr reports that Arkansas State University officials have reached a compromise with member of the school's football team-- the Red Wolves-- who want to honor their recently murdered teammate and their recently deceased equipment manager by wearing a Christian cross with the men's initials on it on team helmets this season. (See prior posting.) So long as the student athletes purchase the cross decals themselves and personally place them on their helmets, the University will not object. Liberty Institute, which had written the University (full text of letter) complaining about its original decision to disallow the decals, issued a press release praising the University's decision last Wednesday to now allow them.

2nd Circuit: Cross At Ground Zero Can Stay In Museum

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, (2d Cir., July 28, 2014), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge by American Atheists to the display in the National September 11 Museum of the 17-foot high "Cross at Ground Zero"-- steel beams in the shape of a cross retrieved from the World Trade Center debris after 9-11. The court summarized its holding as follows:

1. Displaying The Cross at Ground Zero in the National September 11 Museum does not violate the Establishment Clause because:

a. the stated purpose of displaying The Cross at Ground Zero to tell the story of how some people used faith to cope with the tragedy is genuine, and an objective observer would understand the purpose of the display to be secular;

b.   an objective observer would not view the display as endorsing religion generally, or Christianity specifically, because it is part of an exhibit entitled “Finding Meaning at Ground Zero”; the exhibit includes various nonreligious as well as religious artifacts that people at Ground Zero used for solace; and the textual displays accompanying the cross communicate its historical significance within this larger context; and

c.   there is no evidence that the static display of this genuine historic artifact excessively entangles the government with religion.

2. In the absence of any Establishment Clause violation or any evidence of discriminatory animus toward atheists, the Museum did not deny equal protection by displaying The Cross at Ground Zero and refusing plaintiffs’ request to fund an accompanying symbol commemorating atheists.

CNN reported on the decision.

Court Rules On Various Establishment Clause Challenges To Veterans Memorial

Hewett v. City of King, (MD NC, July 8, 2014), is a challenge to various religious practices at the Veterans Memorial in a King, North Carolina park. The most controversial of the practices were: (1) the flying of a Christian flag along with ten other military, U.S., state and city flags. In a policy that changed over time, ultimately the Christian flag was flown 47 weeks a year on a pole that was designated a limited public forum. And (2) the placing of a stature of a soldier kneeling in front of a cross as part of the memorial. In a 110-page opinion, a North Carolina federal district court ruled that the question of whether these violated the Establishment Clause should proceed to trial on issues of disputed fact.

Plaintiff also objected to various memorial events held at the Veterans Memorial. The court concluded as a matter of law that the city's involvement in arranging and participating in events at which speakers deliver overtly Christian messages violated the Establishment Clause. However the appearance of the city's fire truck at these events, the granting of perpetual permits to host annual ceremonies, installation of pavers, the participation of the mayor in non-religious ways in memorial ceremonies and certain other activities did not amount to endorsement by the city or excessive entanglement. Americans United issued a press release announcing the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Reparative Therapy and Mt. Soledad Cross Cases

Nearly lost in the coverage of today's Hobby Lobby decision were two important denials of certiorari by the Supreme Court. (Order List of June 30, 2014).  The court denied review in Pickup v. Brown (Docket No. 13-949) and the related case of Welch v. Brown (Docket No. 13-1281).  The 9th Circuit's consolidated decision in the two cases upheld the constitutionality of California Senate Bill 1172 that bans state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with patients under 18. (See prior posting.)

Additionally, the Court denied certiorari in Mount Soledad Memorial Association v. Trunk, (Docket No. 13-1061).  In seeking cert., petitioners were attempting to bypass the 9th Circuit and obtain Supreme Court review of a long-running battle over a 43-foot high cross in the now federally-owned Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in California. (See prior posting.) Justice Alito filed a separate statement [scroll to end of Order List] concurring in the denial of review, but mainly because of the very demanding standard to obtain Supreme Court review before the Court of Appeals acts.

7th Circuit: Church Lacks Standing To Appeal Injunction Against City On Cross Display

In Cabral v. City of Evansville, Indiana, (7th Cir., June 25, 2014), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing an appeal of an Indiana federal district court's injunction barring Evansville from permitting a church's proposed display of 31 six-foot tall crosses on 4-block Riverfront area. The district court concluded that the display would violate the Establishment Clause. (See prior posting.) The city of Evansville did not appeal; the church involved (West Side Christian) which had been an intervenor in the case below did.  The 7th Circuit concluded that since the injunction ran only against the city, vacating it would not necessarily remedy any injury West Side suffered.  The city could still refuse to permit the display. In addition, any decision the 7th Circuit made on the merits would affect only the city which is not a party to the appeal.  The court concluded that in order to obtain standing, West Side would need to apply for a permit and have it denied by the city because of the district court's injunction.  The 7th Circuit then added:

We caution, however, that West Side’s road ahead might not necessarily get any easier if it ever attains standing to challenge the injunction. We question whether a reasonable observer would be put on notice that the “Cross the River” display is strictly private speech given the sheer magnitude of a display that takes up four blocks and has two signs alerting citizens that it is a private display.

Veterans' Memorial Design Featuring Cross Held Unconstitutional

Following on a preliminary injunction issued last July (see prior posting), this week after a bench trial a California federal district court in American Humanist Association v. City of Lake Elsinore, (CD CA, Feb. 24, 2014), held that a veterans'-memorial design approved by the Lake Elsinore (CA) City Council violates the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause and the California constitution's Establishment and No Preference Clauses. The memorial includes a soldier kneeling with his gun in front of a 1.4 foot cross, and a row of approximately eight additional crosses and two Stars of David behind the central cross. The court, after tracing in detail the history of the design and redesign of the proposed monument concluded that the city had not shown a predominately secular purpose for including the Latin cross in the design, and its principal effect is to advance religion.  The city's contention that the multiple crosses and stars of David added in a redesign of the monument had the secular purpose of depicting a historic European World War II military cemetery was described by the court as "only a litigating position." American Humanist Association issued a press release calling attention to the decision.

Suit Challenges World War I Memorial Cross

A humanist organization and three individuals yesterday filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a 40-foot tall cross erected nearly 90 years ago as a memorial to those killed in World War I.  The cross is located on a median between roadways in Bladensburg, Maryland.  The complaint (full text) in American Humanist Association v. Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Commission, (D MD, filed 2/25/2014) contends that the county's:

ownership, maintenance and prominent display on public property of the Bladensburg Cross amounts to the endorsement and advancement of religion (and, specifically, an endorsement of and affiliation with Christianity) in violation of the Establishment Clause.

American Humanist Association issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

7th Circuit Oral Arguments In Challenge To Cross Display On Riverfront

Yesterday, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Cabral v. City of Evansville. In the case, an Indiana federal district court enjoined the city of Evansville from permitting Westside Christian Church and other religious organizations from erecting a planned display of  31 six-foot tall crosses on the city's 4-block Riverfront area. (See prior posting.) AP reports on yesterday's oral arguments.

Suit Challenges Addition of Cross To Los Angeles County Seal

Yesterday, the ACLU announced that it has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a number of plaintiffs challenging the recent decision by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to modify the county seal by adding a cross atop the depiction of the San Gabriel Mission already on it. (See prior posting.) The complaint (full text) in Davies v. Los Angeles Board of County Supervisors, (CD CA, filed 2/6/2014), contends that the cross violates the Establishment Clause as well as provisions in the California constitution that protect free exercise and bar the expenditure of public funds to aid religion. Los Angeles Times reports on the filing of the lawsuit.

Los Angeles County Seal Changed To Add Cross Atop Depiction of Mission Building

According to the DiamondBar-Walnut Patch, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors yesterday created a new Establishment Clause controversy, voting 3-2 to approve a motion (full text) to modify the county seal to add a cross atop the depiction of the San Gabriel Mission already on it.  A version of the seal that the county adopted in 1957 had included a cross.  In 2004 the ACLU objected and the county redesigned the seal to eliminate the cross and change other images on it. (Background.) The new seal depicted the San Gabriel Mission without a cross because in 2004 the cross that used to be on the Mission had been removed for retrofitting after an earthquake.  In 2009 the cross was reattached to the Mission.  Supporters of yesterday's change say that the depiction of the Mission had become "artistically and architecturally inaccurate."  Opponents say that argument is disingenuous.

District Court Orders Mt. Soledad Cross Removed; Appeals Expected

On Thursday, yet another opinion was handed down in the litigation challenging the constitutionality of the cross that is part of the Mt. Soledad veterans' Memorial. Various lawsuits over over the 43-foot high cross on public property in California have spanned 24 years.  In 2011, the 9th Circuit (see prior posting) held that the Memorial conveys an endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause, but added: "This result does not mean that the Memorial could not be modified to pass constitutional muster nor does it mean that no cross can be part of this veterans’ memorial." The 9th Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine the appropriate remedy.

After attempts to appeal the 9th Circuit's ruling were rejected, the district court in Trunk v. City of San Diego, (SD CA, Dec. 12, 2013) has now held that the cross must be removed.  It said that despite the 9th Circuit's statement that changes in the Memorial might make it constitutionally acceptable, language in the 9th Circuit's opinion "makes it clear that removal of the large, historic cross is the only remedy that the Ninth Circuit conceives will cure the constitutional violation."  This is unlikely to be the last word, however, because the court also stayed its order pending the resolution of any appeal.  Liberty Institute says that it will appeal the ruling, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Wall Street Journal reports on the decision.

Polish Appellate Court Refuses To Order Removal of Cross Hanging In Parliament

In Poland yesterday, the Court of Appeal in Warsaw dismissed a suit by members of Your Movement party, a liberal Polish political party, seeking to have a cross which hangs in the Plenary Hall of the Sejm (lower house of Parliament) removed. Polskie Radio reports that challengers, invoking both the Polish constitution and EU directives, argued that that the presence of the cross violates their rights to freedom of conscience and religion.  In rejecting their challenge, the court said: "The cross is a religious symbol, but its importance as a symbol of national identity and culture cannot be ignored." The court's press release on the decision (in Polish) is available online. The head of Your Movement says that they will appeal the decision to the European Court of Human Rights. (See prior related posting.)