4th Circuit: Latin Cross War Memorial Violates Establishment Clause

In American Humanist Association v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, (4th Cir., Oct. 18, 2017), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a 40-foot tall Latin Cross on government property created as a World War I Veterans' Memorial violates the Establishment Clause.  The majority summarized its holding:

The monument here has the primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion. The Latin cross is the core symbol of Christianity. And here, it is 40 feet tall; prominently displayed in the center of one of the busiest intersections in Prince George’s County, Maryland; and maintained with thousands of dollars in government funds. Therefore, we hold that the purported war memorial breaches the “wall of separation between Church and State.”

Chief Judge Gregory, dissenting in part, said:

I conclude that a reasonable observer would understand that the Memorial, while displaying a religious symbol, is a war memorial built to celebrate the forty-nine Prince George’s County residents who gave their lives in battle. Such an observer would not understand the effect of the Commission’s display of the Memorial—with such a commemorative past and set among other memorials in a large state park— to be a divisive message promoting Christianity over any other religion or nonreligion. A cross near a busy intersection "need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs...."

Baltimore Sun reports on the decision.

Reluctant Judge Holds Cross On County Seal Is Unconstitutional

In Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. County of Lehigh, (ED PA, Sept. 28, 2017), a Pennsylvania federal district court held that a large, central Latin cross in the seal and flag of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania violate the Establishment Clause under the Lemon test and the endorsement test.  However Judge Edward Smith devoted much of his opinion to explaining why he disagrees with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause:

If the drafters’ intent and the plain text of the Establishment Clause had alone guided the evolution of modern First Amendment jurisprudence and shaped the law applicable to this case, its resolution would be cut-and-dry. By including a Latin cross on the Seal, the County has chosen to celebrate the Christian values important throughout its history. The County has not, however, legally compelled its citizens to practice and conform to Christianity, infringed on freedom of conscience, or created political conflict between the Christian Church and other religious sects. Simply put, the County of Lehigh did not intend to “establish” religion or institute a County religion when it adopted Commissioner Herzog’s design for the Seal. And if it had intended to do so, it has certainly failed—one of the plaintiffs himself testified that per the 2010 census, 49 percent of the County reported no religious affiliation at all....

While such considerations appear to be a matter of common-sense in determining whether a government has established a religion in violation of the First Amendment, binding precedent has taken the inquiry in a different direction.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.

UPDATE: The judgment ordering a permanent injunction (full text) was entered on Nov. 2, 2017, to become effective 180 days later, and, if an appeal is filed, with a stay (except for any new uses of the seal) while the appeal is pending.

California Lions Club Sues To Control Cross In Park

According to the East Bay Times, on Sept. 11 the Albany, California Lion's Club filed suit in federal court against the city and several city officials in a dispute involving a 20-foot cross in the city's Albany Hill Park. The cross was constructed in 1971 on privately-owned land.  It was transferred to the city in 1973 as part of a controversial land deal in which the city created Albany Hill Park. Before the transfer to the city, the Lion's Club was granted an easement to allow it to maintain the cross. In December 2015, the city cut power to the cross, contending that a utility line running to it was unsafe. It cut power again in 2016 until the local utility PG&E took responsibility for the power line to assure that the cross would be lit for the Christmas and Easter seasons. According to the Times report, the suit:

asks for permanent injunctions preventing the city from depriving the Lions Club of using its easement, preventing interference in utility service, hampering the Lions Club’s free speech rights and exercise of religion, and demands an order to force the city to sell or divest ownership of the land with the cross on it. The suit also asks for damages and legal fees.

Latin Cross In City Park Violates Establishment Clause

In Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola, Florida, (ND FL, June 19, 2017), a clearly reluctant Florida federal district court judge held that a 34-foot concrete Latin Cross that has stood in the city's Bayview Park for decades violates the Establishment Clause.  The cross is the site for an annual Easter sunrise service as well as remembrance services on Veterans Day and Memorial Day.  The court laments:

... the historical record indicates that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Establishment Clause to ban crosses and religious symbols from public property. Indeed, “the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution” ... would have most likely found this lawsuit absurd. And if I were deciding this case on a blank slate, I would agree and grant the plaintiffs no relief. But, alas, that is not what we have here.

The court concluded that  ACLU of Georgia v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, a 1983 case from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals involving "this exact issue on virtually identical facts" required it to conclude that the Bayview Cross violates the Establishment clause under the Lemon test. The court concluded:

To be clear: None of this is to say that the cross would have to come down if the City sold or leased the area surrounding it to a private party or non-governmental entity (so long as the transfer was bona fide and not a subterfuge). Nor would there be a constitutional problem with worshipers using a temporary cross for their services in the park.... However, after about 75 years, the Bayview Cross can no longer stand as a permanent fixture on city-owned property.

The American Humanist Association issued a press release on the decision, with links to various pleadings in the case.

Suit Over War Memorial Depicting Cross Is Settled

The American Humanist Association announced on Thursday that a settlement has been reached in  American Humanist Association v. Borough of Roselle Park.  In the case, plaintiffs brought an Establishment Clause challenge to a war memorial on public property depicting a soldier kneeling over a grave marked by a Christian cross. (See prior posting.) The city took down the memorial after the lawsuit was filed.  Under the settlement agreement, the city agreed it will not erect the same display or a similar one in the future.

Satanic Temple Will Erect War Memorial In Park's Free Speech Zone

The Minneapolis Star Tribune last week reported on the controversy in Belle Plaine, MN over a war memorial in a city park. The memorial includes a 2-foot tall cross. After a complaint about the religious symbol on public property, the city initially ordered the cross removed. But then protesters who wanted the cross to remain occupied the park each day.  The city relented, but to meet constitutional objections it designated a small area in the park as a "free speech zone" where up to ten temporary memorials to honor veterans will be allowed. The first organization to apply was the Satanic Temple, and it will now erect a memorial to honor non-religious soldiers. The memorial be a black cube inscribed with inverted pentagrams with an upturned helmet on top.

City Removes Cross From Park To Settle Lawsuit

A settlement has effectively been reached in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. City of Santa Clara, a suit challenging a cross on city owned property in Santa Clara, California. (See prior posting.) The cross was originally donated in 1953 by the Lion's Club to mark the site of the second Spanish Catholic mission established in the city in 1777. According to a press release yesterday from FFRF, the cross has been removed and donated to the Catholic Santa Clara University. The case remains pending in a California federal district court until motions to dismiss are filed and approved.

Town Sued Over Cross On Christmas Tree

As reported yesterday by Fox 59 News, the ACLU has filed suit on behalf of a resident of Knightstown, Indiana against the city challenging the cross that tops the Christmas tree in the town square. The tree has been displayed for many years. However plaintiff Joseph Tompkins says that the cross is "is the preeminent symbol of Christianity," and this makes the display religious and a violation of the Establishment Clause. Other town residents support the cross and have various ideas for showing their support.

UPDATE: On Dec. 12, the Knightstown Council had the cross atop the Christmas tree removed, saying it could not win the lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Town residents unsuccessfully attempted to block the bucket truck removing the cross. (Fox 59 News).

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Two Religion Cases

Yesterday the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in American Humanist Association v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (audio of oral arguments). In the case, a Maryland federal district court rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to the 90-year old Peace Cross, a 40-foot tall Veteran's Memorial in the shape of a cross. (See prior posting.) Reporting on the oral arguments, the Washington Post said in part:

Two appeals court judges clearly stated that there is no way to view the Peace Cross in Bladensburg other than as a symbol of Christianity.

The third judge on the appeals panel just as strongly said that the marble-and-cement monument is a secular war memorial honoring the death and sacrifice of those lost in battle.

Yesterday the 4th Circuit also heard oral arguments in EEOC v. COMSO: Energy, Inc. (audio of oral arguments). In the case, a West Virginia federal district court awarded damages to an Evangelical Christian mine employee who who objected to biometric hand scanning to track time and attendance, believing that it involves the Mark of the Beast forbidden in the Book of Revelation. (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges Veterans' Memorial Featuring Cross

A suit was filed yesterday in a New Jersey federal district court challenging on Establishment Clause grounds a war memorial erected outside the Veterans Memorial public library in Roselle Park, New Jersey.  As pictured and described in a report on the lawsuit by NJ Advance Media, the memorial depicts a soldier kneeling over a grave marked by a cross. The complaint (full text) in American Humanist Association v. Borough of Roselle Park, (D NJ, filed 9/30/2016) alleges in part:

When the government displays an iconic religious symbol – the symbol of Christianity – on its property, it sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion. This message of religious favoritism is even more problematic because the cross display purports to be a government memorial honoring war dead. No such monument should honor just one religious group, but the cross at issue here does exactly that: it exalts Christian veterans and excludes everyone else.

UPDATE: NJ Advance Media reports that on Oct. 6, in light of the litigation, the Roselle Park Borough Council voted unanimously to dismantle the statue outside the library.

Suit Challenges Latin Cross In County Seal and Flag

A suit was filed in federal district court this week seeking to enjoin Lehigh County, Pennsylvania from continuing to display the current county seal and county flag that includes a Latin cross (partly hidden by a depiction of the county courthouse) as a prominent part of the design.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. County of Lehigh, (ED PA, filed 8/16/2016) contends that the cross amounts to an endorsement of Christianity, while the county Board of Commissioners says the cross was made part of the design to honor the original settlers of Lehigh County who were Christian. FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

County Settles Lawsuit By Removing Cross Decals From Sheriff's Cars

Austin American-Statesman reports that last week Brewster County, Texas commissioners approved a settlement in Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Brewster County, Texas, which had been filed in federal district court in March.  In the case, FFRF sued challenging 8-inch tall Latin cross decals placed by the sheriff on six county law enforcement vehicles. (See prior posting.)  Three weeks after the suit was filed, the county Commissioners Court approved a ban on all political, religious, commercial and personal symbols and messages on county vehicles. In the proposed consent decree (full text) embodying the settlement, the court will enjoin the county from displaying Latin cross decals on Sheriff's Office vehicles, order defendants to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and cost totaling slightly over $22,000, and award nominal damages of $1 each to two individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Memorial Day Display Triggers Controversy

A Memorial Day display intended to honor the 79 residents of Paulding County, Georgia who died in U.S. wars has become a center of controversy. At issue are 79 white, handmade crosses placed on public land along a state highway. As reported yesterday by Fox News:

[T]he crosses were abruptly taken down last Friday after someone called Hiram City Hall questioning whether the soldiers were all Christian.

The move sparked public outcry -- particularly on social media -- and, after a city council meeting Tuesday night, the crosses were put back in place Wednesday morning.

"It was never about religion -- it was just to honor them," [said] Hiram Mayor Teresa Philyaw...

Settlement of Lawsuit Clears Way For Construction of Tallest Cross In the U.S.

Christian Today reports that in Corpus Christie, Texas, construction will move ahead on a 210-foot high cross, to be built along a major highway on property owned by Abundant Life Fellowship Church. Apparently the cross will be the largest in the English-speaking world.  Construction was at a standstill after atheist Patrick Greene had filed suit challenging the cross as a violation of Texas Constitution, Art I, Sec 6 that provides:

No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship.

In response to the lawsuit, the Church's pastor filed a motion for sanctions under Texas' anti-SLAPP law.  In a court order approving a settlement agreement (full text) in Greene v. Milby, (TX Dist. Ct., May 23, 2016), the court found that Greene's lawsuit was vexatious and meritless. In the agreement both parties dropped all their claims, and Greene promised to not file additional vexatious litigation.

City Sells Religious Monument In Park To Church To Counter Complaints

Christian News reports today that the city of Port Neches, Texas has fended off complaints from the Freedom From Religion Foundation about a 10-foot high Latin cross in a public park by selling the cross and the land surrounding it to a local church.  The 20 foot by 20 foot parcel of land in Riverfront Park was sold to the First United Methodist Church for $100.  FFRF, while applauding the sale, is looking further into whether the sale price was artificially low.

Suit Challenges 25-Foot Cross In Florida Park

The American Humanist Association yesterday announced the filing of a federal court lawsuit against the city of Pensacola, Florida to challenge the city's ownership, maintenance and display of a 25-foot tall Christian cross that stands alone in the city's Bayview Park.  The complaint (full text) in Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola, Florida, (ND FL, filed 5/4/2016) says that the history of the cross is uncertain, but it is used solely for Christian Easter sunrise services each year. The cross was placed in the park sometime between 1951 and 1965, probably by the Jaycees. Easter services in the park pre-date the erection of the cross there. The lawsuit seeks an injunction ordering removal of the cross from government property.

Michigan City Restores Cross On Sand Dune-- Sort Of...

As previously reported, in a controversial move last year that was unsuccessfully challenged by citizens, the city of Grand Haven, Michigan agreed to remove a 48 foot cross that had been displayed periodically on a city-owned sand dune for 50 years. The city turned the cross into a Coast Guard anchor. However, according to a report in the Washington Free Beacon, this week the Grand Haven City Council (with one of last year's councilmen having lost re-election) has now voted 3-2 to add a yardarm to a flag pole on the sand dune.  When the side arm is extended, the flag pole will look like a cross. That will happen on several holidays each year.

Suit Challenges Cross At Site of Historic Spanish Mission

The Freedom From Religion Foundation this week filed suit in a California federal district court challenging the constitutionality of a 14-foot tall granite Latin cross in Santa Clara's Memorial Cross Park.  The complaint (full text) in Freedom From Religion Foundation v. City of Santa Clara, (ND CA, filed 4/20/2016), says that the cross was donated and placed on city-owned property in 1953 by the Lion's Club to mark the site of the second Spanish Catholic mission established in the city in 1777. The site continues to be maintained by the city. Plaintiff claims that the city's actions violate the Establishment Clause of the federal and state constitutions as well as the "no aid" clause of California's constitution.  FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit and containing a photo of the disputed marker.

Court Says Cross on County Seal Is Unconstitutional

In Davies v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, (CD CA, April 6, 2016), a California federal district court granted a permanent injunction requiring removal of a cross from the Los Angeles County Seal.  Under threat of a lawsuit in 2004, the County redesigned its Seal replacing a cross that was on it with a depiction of the San Gabriel Mission. Subsequently the San Gabriel Mission added a cross on its building and the County Board voted to add the cross to the Mission's depiction on the Seal. The district court held that the addition of the cross violates both the Establishment Clause and the California Constitution's No Aid clause. Los Angeles Times reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Pastor's Invitation To Texas Mayor To Speak At Groundbreaking For Cross

The Corpus Christi Caller Times reported yesterday on a lawsuit against the pastor of a local church who invited Corpus Christi's mayor to speak at a groundbreaking ceremony for a 210-foot tall cross placed along an Interstate highway near the Texas city. Mayor Nelda Martinez spoke at the ceremony about her late father's dream for a cross at the helm of the Corpus Christi Bay.  The lawsuit filed in state court by Patrick Greene accuses the pastor, Rick Milby, of violating state law-- apparently Art. I, Sec. 6 of the Texas constitution-- when he invited the mayor and council leaders to the groundbreaking. The city attorney calls the lawsuit frivolous.