Tag Archives: Topic: Monuments

Tulsa World: “A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Haskell County commissioners must pay the legal fees of the ACLU of Oklahoma in its lawsuit against a Ten Commandments monument in Stigler . . . An attorney representing Haskell County commissioners said last week that they plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the commissioners, said he will ask the high court to hear the case within 90 days.”

The Oklahoman (Tulsa World): “Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the commissioners, said he will ask the high court to hear the case within 90 days.”

The Joplin Globe (AP): “Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defense Fund says he will ask the high court to hear the case within 90 days.”

Tulsa World: “Kevin Theriot, of the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing commissioners, said he will ask the higher court to hear the case within the next 90 days. ‘They don’t necessarily have to hear it. They can choose to or not,’ Theriot said. The fact that it was a 6-6 decision not to rehear a previous three-judge panel’s unanimous decision against the monument is ‘quite telling’ and will help sway their argument to be heard, Theriot said.”

OneNewsNow: “‘The county commissioners expressed their personal views on their own time that they thought the Ten Commandments monument on the courthouse lawn was a good idea, but none of the comments were made during a meeting or in their official capacity,’ says Theriot. ‘And the court said that, well, that doesn’t matter because they live in a small town. It doesn’t matter because no one knows when they are off duty or on duty, which is kind of ludicrous.’”

Rick Garnett writing at Prawfsblawg: “I’ve been saying — perhaps, given my own research interests, for selfish reasons — that ‘church autonomy’ questions, and not holiday displays, etc., are now the more important law-and-religion ones and should be the focus of religious-freedom scholars and lawyers. Maybe I’m wrong. Still, I remain very and increasingly skeptical of the idea that there’s much useful work for judges to do in policing these kinds of displays for “establishments” of religion.”

Courier-Journal: “Jackson County must pay legal costs of nearly $6,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and another plaintiff to settle a lawsuit over displays of the Ten Commandments throughout the county courthouse.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State: “Americans United made the argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed yesterday in Salazar v. Buono, a legal battle centering on the display of a cross at the Mojave National Preserve in California. The case will come before the high court Oct. 7.”

The Journal Record: “‘I think it demonstrates just how bad the initial opinion was,’ Theriot said of the evenly split vote. ‘The dissenting opinions really point that out, that this is really the first case since Van Orden v. Perry where a Ten Commandments monument displayed along with other historical monuments was struck down as unconstitutional.’”

CBS-4 (AP): “ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot says there is no difference between the Haskell County Ten Commandments display and one upheld at the Texas state capitol.”

KTUL (AP): “ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot says there is no difference between the Haskell County Ten Commandments display and one upheld at the Texas state capitol.”

In a 6-to-6 decision, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit Thursday narrowly decided not to review a three-judge panel’s determination that a Ten Commandments display at the Haskell County, Oklahoma, Courthouse is unconstitutional. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund plan to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

. . . two dissenting opinions to the denial of en banc review were filed.

Lexington Herald-Leader: “A federal lawsuit over Ten Commandments displays in the Jackson County Courthouse could be resolved for about $6,000 if a judge accepts a proposed settlement filed Tuesday by the fiscal court and the American Civil Liberties Union.”

INFORUM reports: “The city of Fargo is asking for the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging its display of the Ten Commandments by the Red River Valley Freethinkers. The city argues that the Freethinkers lack the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the display, upheld in an earlier court challenge by the group.”

WYMT reports: “An update to a story we brought you three weeks ago in Jackson County about a lawsuit over the ten commandments being on display in the courthouse. The ten commandments are no longer on the walls inside the courthouse. County leaders removed the commandments in response to a lawsuit.”

http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/07/house-passes-resolution-calling-for.html”>Religion Clause Blog: “The House of Representatives yesterday, by a vote of 410-8, passed H. Con. Res. 131, directing the Architect of the Capitol to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ in the Capitol Visitor Center . . .

A federal lawsuit was filed last week challenging the display of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse in yet another Kentucky county.

Valparaiso University Law Review: “In this Article, we examine the issues that bring First Amendment jurisprudence to the grant of certiorari in Pleasant Grove v. Summum, scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court of the United States in November. We examine the historical basis for America’s religious heritage, the historical judicial treatment of the religious clauses, and the erosion of the wall of separation between church and state. We examine the Ten Commandments, finding inherent discrimination present in modern-day attempts to advance a particular version of the Ten Commandments as secular.”

Associated Press: “The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a Denver appeals court to deny a request by Haskell County commissioners to reconsider its decision last month against a Ten Commandments monument.”

Robert Boczkiewicz reports in the Tulsa World: “Haskell County commissioners contend that an appeals court was wrong when it ruled that a Ten Commandments monument on the county’s courthouse lawn violates the U.S. Constitution . . . Through their attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, they state that three federal appeals courts in other parts of the country have upheld such monuments.”

Robert Boczkiewicz reports in the Tulsa World: “‘In fact, this is the first and only circuit to strike down a Ten Commandments monument’ after the 2005 decision, the commissioners assert. They, through their attorneys at the Alliance Defense Fund, state that three federal appeals courts in other parts of the country have upheld such monuments.”

One News Now: “Lawyers are providing written arguments in a case in which a cross has been banned at a veteran memorial in the Mojave Desert. The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, filed suit because the cross, which honors soldiers who gave their lives for their country, was on federal property.” Kelly Shackelford of Liberty Legal Institute is quoted and pictured in this report.

OneNewsNow reports: “‘Haskell County allowed Mike Bush, who is a citizen, to put a monument on the courthouse lawn, along with several other historical monuments, along with the Ten Commandments,’ Theriot notes. ‘They have a monument to the veterans, a monument to the Choctaw Indians, to the class of 1955, and several other historical-type of monuments.’”

Virginia Law Review In Brief: “This rule hinges, of course, on whether or not it is in fact the government speaking; the doctrine does not, by definition, apply to private speech that takes place on public grounds. Thus, much of the argument in Pleasant Grove centered on whether the city has “adopted” or “effectively controlled” the message of the Fraternal Order of Eagles’ monument by displaying it in Pioneer Park.”

Adelle M. Banks reporting at Christianity Today (RNS): “The Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the commissioners, said it is considering an appeal. ‘Small-town government officials have just as much right to express their personal opinions about monuments as those in larger cities,’ said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot.”

Citizen Link Turn Signal: The U.S. Supreme Court soon could decide whether an 8-foot memorial cross can remain in the Mojave National Preserve in California. Kelly Shackelford, founder of the Liberty Legal Institute, is on the case.

Dakota Voice: “In fact, in a move that could only be described as the height of silliness, they have demanded that a bag or box be put over the cross until the case is decided. Apparently they believe anyone who sees the cross will be instantly contaminated by the Christian faith and brutally damaged.”

Manny Gamallo and Susan Hylton report in the Tulsa World: “The Haskell County commissioners are being represented for free by the Alliance Defense Fund. According to its Web page, the ADF defends religious freedom cases ‘through a legal alliance of Christian attorneys, like-minded organizations, and the critical financial support of our Ministry Friends.’

ADF attorney Kevin Theriot said he advised Haskell County commissioners not to comment. While the case is pending, Theriot said, nothing will be done to the Ten Commandments monument in Stigler.”

Craig Day reports at News on 6: “A faith advocacy group is fighting to keep the Ten Commandments monument at the courthouse. The Alliance Defense Fund says the court got it completely wrong and that the monument is displayed alongside other monuments with historical significance.”

AP: “The state bill, approved overwhelmingly last month by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Brad Henry, authorizes the placement of a privately funded a 3-by-6-foot Ten Commandments monument on the State Capitol grounds. It also authorizes the attorney general or the Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas-based legal advocacy group, to defend the monument if it’s challenged in court.”

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund are reviewing possible options for appeal after . . . the 10th Circuit Monday reversed a lower court decision that upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display at the Haskell County, Oklahoma, Courthouse.

Eric Young writes in The Christian Post: “‘Haskell County officials acted within the law when they allowed the display of this Ten Commandments monument,’ argued Attorney Kevin Theriot of the Alliance Defense Fund, who represented the commissioners in this case. ‘The monument is historically important and does not represent the furtherance of any religion by the county.’”

Marie Price reports in the Journal Record: “Alliance Defense Fund attorney Kevin Theriot, of Leawood, Kan., said he will recommend that the county commissioners seek a rehearing before the full court. Monday’s decision came from a three-judge panel of the appellate court. But he said a final decision on how to proceed rests with his clients.”

” . . . the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a display of a Ten Commandments monument on the lawn of the county courthouse in Stigler, Oklahoma, violated the Establishment Clause.”

Religion Clause Blog: “Now, according to yesterday’s Deseret News, Summum has asked a federal district court to dismiss its lawsuit because subsequent developments have in effect mooted it. The city has moved the Ten Commandments monument from Roy Park to the city cemetery. Summum’s attorney, Brian M. Barnard, says that while the cemetery is still city property, cemeteries are treated differently.”

Religion Clause Blog: “The Tulsa World reports that Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry on Monday signed House Bill 1330 [Word .doc] that authorizes placement of a Ten Commandments monument on the State Capitol grounds.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State press release: “Americans United for Separation of Church and State today advised Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry to veto a legislative measure that would authorize a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state Capitol.”

Religion Clause Blog: “AP reported yesterday that the Oklahoma House of Representatives, by a vote of 83-2, has passed HB 1330, the Ten Commandments Monument Display Act [full text, Word doc].” The law provides: “In the event that the legality or constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument is challenged in a court of law, the Oklahoma Attorney General or Liberty Legal Institute is hereby authorized to prepare and present a legal defense of the monument.”

Northwestern University Law Review: “This short essay reviews the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. The case addressed whether Summum, a religious group, had a right under the Free Speech Clause to put up a permanent monument of its Seven Aphorisms – its version of the Ten Commandments – in a local city park, given that the park already contained a number of other objects donated by various groups, including a more orthodox Ten Commandments display donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected Summum’s claim. This essay explains the background of the case, addresses the legal claims asserted by the parties, and discusses the Court’s opinion and its ramifications. It pays particular attention to the religious dimensions of the case, ones largely not explored by the Court. ”

Liberty Counsel: “Tomorrow a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit will hear oral argument in a case involving a Foundations of American Law and Government display. In ACLU v. Grayson County, Kentucky, the ACLU challenged the Ten Commandments contained in the historical display. Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, will present the oral argument on behalf of Grayson County.”

AP: “Alabama’s Ten Commandments judge, Roy Moore, says he’s “very inclined” to make another race for governor next year.”

Richard Garnett writes at USA Today:
“Last month, in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the justices ruled unanimously (and correctly) that the free-speech clause allows a city to adopt and display one privately donated monument while refusing another. When the government speaks, in other words, it gets (for the most part) to pick its own

message. Next year, in Salazar v. Buono, the court will likely consider whether the First Amendment requires the government to remove a war-memorial cross from a hill in the Mojave National Preserve. More particularly, one question in this case is whether the government’s efforts to save the cross — by transferring the land underneath it to private hands — amount to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. If the justices do answer this question, they should say, ‘No, it does not.’

Although these two First Amendment cases involve different monuments in different places, they both illustrate something that the ‘fortress’ analogy misses — namely, that the government is already, and unavoidably, inside the free-speech walls. And so, we need to worry not only about the government’s efforts to get in, but also about what it ‘says’ once it does . . .

Mary Jean Dolan writes at the National Law Journal:

“A 9-0 judgment for Pleasant Grove City, Utah, on a case involving an icon of the ‘Culture Wars’ — a government-displayed Ten Commandments monument — what’s going on here? . . . At least in the certiorari granted and oral argument news cycles, most media stories focused on discrimination against a tiny religion in favor of the familiar Judeo-Christian monument, but that was never the legal issue in the case. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a government’s display of a privately donated, permanent monument is ‘government speech,’ so that its decisions to accept or reject proffered donations are not covered by the free speech clause.” Related posts and
The Summum ruling

A federal judge has ordered a pair of southern Kentucky counties to pay $393,798 in attorneys fees stemming from their defense of posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

This Comment’s objective is not primarily to say why the Commandments are desirable to display, nor to frame a detailed legal case as to how they can be defended. The inquiry is limited to the interplay of theology and law in the historical argument for the Commandments–are public displays of the Commandments trapped between theological indifference on the one hand, or legal failure on the other? With the modest belief that the legal practitioners should take note of the theological implications of their arguments, and that the arguments should be informed by both the principle and the practical, we shall proceed: first, to examine the state of the court precedent; second, to consider the theological problems with the “historical” defense of the Commandments; and third, to suggest some routes which would avoid the theological problem.

The article argues that the Ten Commandments monument in Pioneer Park cannot pass this test because the monument is a form of religious exercise utilizing public property, and this public property has not been neutrally allocated. Although not as glamorous as a federal Establishment Clause claim, this claim has a greater chance for success.

Marci Hamilton writes at Findlaw: “Recently, the Supreme Court decided an interesting case that will confound Free Speech and Establishment Clause jurisprudence for years to come. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum presented the Court with a case at the intersection of three …

ACLJ:  “We’re extremely pleased that the Justices took the appropriate action in a second case involving the display of the Ten Commandments in a Utah city,” said Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel who presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court …

Religion Clause Blog: “A petition for cert. had been filed in this companion case [Summum v. Duchesne City] as well, but had never been acted upon by the Court. (See prior posting.) Today, in a brief order (Docket No. 07-690), the Court granted certiorari, …

Religion Clause Blog: “Summum’s attorney, Brian Barnard, has a different take on the case. He says the decision opens the way for him to amend the lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments monument that is in Pioneer …

ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence: “The government does not endorse the religious speech of individuals merely by permitting it in public places.”

“The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that a small religious group cannot force a city in Utah to place a granite marker in a local park that already is home to a Ten Commandments display.”

One News Now: “A plan to erect a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of Oklahoma’s State Capitol has cleared a state House committee.”

This article will summarize and analyze cases involving the Ten Commandments before and after McCreary and Van Orden, and also discuss the role of the Commandments in society.

The Foundation for Moral Law has issued this press release on the Christian Newswire that begins: Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and the Foundation for Moral Law, a religious-liberties legal organization in Montgomery, Alabama, filed a legal brief defending …

Liberty Counsel has issued a press release that reports: Liberty Counsel filed a brief at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of the Foundations of American Law and Government display, which includes the Ten Commandments. Liberty Counsel represents …

In Part II, this Note begins by summarizing the current state of Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Providing background in the Establishment Clause, Part III then discusses the split among the federal branches of government.

“It sounds like a big church-state case, but whatever the Supreme Court decides, it probably won’t affect church-state issues all that much. Both sides agree that this is really a free-speech case, not a religion case. Then again . . . ”

This post will be updated.

On the other hand, other courts have held that the public’s right to use a traditional public forum does not include placement of permanent structures. These courts typically announce the rule as a matter of judicialfiat , offering little, if any, reasoning. Their logic is internally inconsistent and, if applied generally, would lead to unacceptable consequences.

On the difficult moral issues confronting the judiciary today, a long overlooked bit of guidance is provided in the Declaration of Independence, natural law.

A complaint was registered in September involving the Ten Commandments plaque that hangs in the hallway at the courthouse, and the highly controversial issue has the been the topic of conversation in Johnson County since that time.

The ACLU has issued this press release that begins: The ACLU of Ohio filed a lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court of Northern Ohio against Richland County Judge James DeWeese. In its lawsuit, the ACLU claims he has continued …

It suggests that the Court’s new reliance on examining the context of the public display of original symbols assumes an observer who ignores a reading of historical intent…

The McCreary Record reports: “Last week saw renewed activity in the county’s legal fight over posting the Ten Commandments . . . According to a report in The Lexington Herald-Leader, ACLU is seeking $390,588 for the 1,283 hours in which …

The Religion Clause Blog reports: “In ACLU of Florida Inc. v. Dixie County Florida, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61177 (ND FL, Aug. 8, 2008), a Florida federal district court held that an ACLU member had standing (and thus so did …

The ACLU charged that Judge DeWeese’s display of the poster – which graphically compares and contrasts the Ten Commandments with Seven Humanist Principles – violated a 2002 injunction barring him from displaying a poster consisting solely of the Ten Commandments under the caption “Rule of Law.”

The press release begins: “Americans United for Separation of Church and State today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision dealing with a controversy over the display of religious monuments in a Utah public park.”

Liberty Counsel has issued this press release that begins: Today, Liberty Counsel is filing an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum. Liberty Counsel’s brief is being filed in …

Steven Wu has this post on SCOTUS Blog discussing the Pleasant Grove case: On Monday, the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, filed this opening brief with the Supreme Court in the case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, No. 07-665. …

The ACLU of Ohio has issued this press release which includes a link to their Show Cause Motion. The Mansfield News Journal has this report: Richland County Judge says ACLU seeks to stifle free speech. It begins: Richland County Common …

The precedent set in Summum v. Pleasant Grove City takes away the government’s ability to control what monuments it allows in public parks. By ruling public parks are traditional public forums irrespective of the particular channel of communication sought, the Tenth Circuit leaves the government with an all-or-nothing choice when it comes to placing monuments in public parks.

WKYT.com reports: “The case against the Garrard County Fiscal Court over a ten commandments display is over, at least for now. Back in January, the court unveiled a new display after a previous one landed them in court.”  It also …

These conflicting judgments do little to clear up the debate concerning religious monuments on government property. Instead, Van Orden and McCreary seem to have opened the floodgates to further litigation and blurred the “wall of separation between church and state.”