Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Sunrise Rock Memorial Case Finally Settled
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Another Cross Appears and Is Removed From Sunrise Rock
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Sunrise Rock Cross Litigation Becomes Even More Complicated
Friday, May 21, 2010
Stolen Sunrise Rock Cross Replacement-- Up Again, Down Again
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Caretakers Ready To Erect New Cross On Sunrise Rock When Replacement Appears [UPDATED]
Congress attempted to transfer the land on which the cross was constructed to the VFW to avoid an Establishment Clause challenge. In a fragmented decision last month, the U.S. Supreme Court sent the challenge to the land transfer back to the lower courts. (See prior posting.) While the cross was still missing, Hiram Sasser, the director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute, which is representing the VFW, said the theft may have made it simpler to resolve the case on remand. He said: "If there's no cross there, does that mean that the land transfer goes through, it becomes property of the VFW, and we can put the cross back up?" Justice Roberts, in his concurring opinion last month in Salazar v. Buono, said:
At oral argument, respondent’s counsel stated that it "likely would be consistent with the injunction" for the Government to tear down the cross, sell the land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and return the cross to them, with the VFW immediately raising the cross again.... I do not see how it can make a difference for the Government to skip that empty ritual and do what Congress told it to do—sell the land with the cross on it.Meanwhile, on its website Liberty Legal Institute-- in an appeal that seems at odds with its litigation director's theory-- is asking for contributions to help reinstall the memorial on Sunrise Rock, apparently while the litigation proceeds and before the land is formally transferred to VFW. That appeal may now be unnecessary, depending on the Park Service's decision on the cross that has now reappeared.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Anonymous Letter Claims To Be From Veteran Who Stole Sunrise Rock Cross
[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]5. The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual named Henry Sandoz. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.
6. Anthony Kennedy desecrated and marginalized the memory and sacrifice of all those non-Christians that died in WWI when he wrote: 'Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles — battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.' The irony and tragedy of that statement is unique.
7. Justice Kennedy’s words in particular and others like them from the other Justices caused me to act.
8. At the time of its removal there was nothing to identify the cross as a memorial of any kind, and the simple fact of the matter is that the only thing it represented was an oddly placed tribute to Christ. This cross evoked nothing of the sort that Justice Kennedy writes of, it was in the end simply a cross in the desert....12. We as a nation need to change the dialogue and stop pretending that this is about a war memorial. If it is a memorial, then we need to stop arguing about the cross and instead place a proper memorial on that site, one that respects Christians and non-Christians alike, and one that is actually recognizable as a war memorial.
13. If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned to Mr. Sandoz.
14. Alternatively, if a place can be found that memorializes the Christian Veterans of WWI that is not on public land the Cross will promptly be forwarded with care and reverence for installation at the private site.
UPDATE: The May 16 San Bernadino Sun reports that rewards for return of the stolen cross now total $125,000.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Sunrise Rock Cross-- Focus of SCOTUS Decision-- Stolen By Vandals
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Supreme Court Reverses Order Barring Display of Cross At World War I Memorial
Justice Kennedy concluded that the government's objections to plaintiff's standing could not be raised at this stage of the litigation because the government had not properly sought Supreme Court review of the issue when it was initially decided. He then focused on the complex procedural history of the case. The district court enjoined the government from permitting display of the Cross on Sunrise Rock before Congress passed the statute transferring the land to a private party. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that a reasonable observer would see the cross as an endorsement of religion. Plaintiff's challenge to the land transfer was brought in the form of seeking to apply or extend the original injunction to it. The district court enjoined the transfer on the basis of an improper Congressional purpose. Justice Kennedy objected:
The District Court thus used an injunction granted for one reason as the basis for enjoining conduct that was alleged to be objectionable for a different reason.... [It] failed to consider whether, in light of the change in law and circumstances effected by the land-transfer statute, the "reasonable observer" standard continued to be the appropriate framework through which to consider the Establishment Clause concerns invoked to justify the requested relief. As a general matter, courts considering Establishment Clause challenges do not inquire into "reasonable observer" perceptions with respect to objects on private land....In a one-paragraph concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts said that the land transfer was no different that tearing down the cross, selling the land to the VFW, and having the VFW reconstruct the cross.
.... [T]he District Court concentrated solely on the religious aspects of the cross, divorced from its background and context. But a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.
Justice Alito, writing separately, said he agreed with Justice Kennedy, except he did not see any need to remand the case for further proceedings. He would reverse the decision and instruct the district court to vacate its order prohibiting implementation of the land-transfer statute. He said:
Congress chose an ... approach that was designed to eliminate any perception of religious sponsorship stemming from the location of the cross on federally owned land, while at the same time avoiding the disturbing symbolism associated with the destruction of the historic monument. The mechanism that Congress selected is one that is quite common in the West, a "land exchange."Justice Scalia wrote an opinion joined by Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment but arguing that plaintiff lacks Article III standing to pursue what Scalia characterized as new relief, not an appliation of the original injunction. Plaintiff failed to allege any actual or imminent injury from the land transfer, since the only injury plaintiff claimed was his concern with seeing the cross on federal land.
Justice Stevens, in an opininon joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, dissented. Stevens argued that it was proper for the district court to find that the land transfer statute violated its original injunction. He concluded that the land transfer statute did not end government endorsement of the cross:
First, after the transfer it would continue to appear to any reasonable observer that the Government has endorsed the cross, notwithstanding that the name has changed on the title to a small patch of underlying land. This is particularly true because the Government has designated the cross as a national memorial, and that endorsement continues regardless of whether the cross sits on public or private land. Second, the transfer continues the existing government endorsement of the cross because the purpose of the transfer is to preserve its display.Stevens goes on to assert that the plurality is attempting to reopen a settled issue-- whether the government can endorse the cross because of its dual symbolism. In concluding, he emphasized that because Congress has created no other memorial to the veterans of World War I, this sectarian symbol is the only monument to all the soldiers who died in that war.
Finally Justice Breyer wrote a separate dissent arguing that the Court should have dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted since the case turns on fairly clear principles of the law of injunctions and presents no federal questions of general significance. A district court has considerable leeway to interpret the meaning of its own injunctions, and should interpret the scope of an injunction in light of the injunction's purpose and history. The district court did that here. The Washington Post reports on the decision.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Colbert's Satirical Review of Arguments In Sunrise Rock Cross Case
The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
The Word - Symbol-Minded | ||||
http://www.colbertnation.com/ | ||||
|
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Supreme Court Hears Arguments In War Memorial Cross Case [Revised]
Monday, February 23, 2009
Supreme Court Grants Cert In Sunrise Rock Cross Case
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Cert. Filed In Mojave Desert War Memorial Cross Case
UPDATE: Here is the full text of the petition for certiorari, thanks to Inverse Condemnation blog.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Split 9th Circuit Rejects En Banc Review In Sunrise Rock Cross Case
After the panel refused to grant a rehearing, the full court also refused to grant an en banc rehearing. However, in a long opinion, five judges dissented from the denial en banc review. The dissent argues that there is no evidence that the government will maintain or support the Sunrise Rock Cross after its transfer, and says that the VFW should not be required to sacrifice its private rights in the Sunrise Rock land in order to cure an Establishment Clause violation by the government. [Thanks to How Appealing for the lead.][Corrected].
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
American Legion Blasts 9th Circuit's Mojave Cross Decision
This is one more prime example of wrong-headed political correctness and one more critical reason why the current Congress must pass the Public Expression of Religion Act.... Today it’s a memorial. Tomorrow, these same judges can order the removal of crosses on veterans gravestones, the dismissal of military chaplains and the closure of base chapels.