Crosses on public land: Did Supreme Court leave legal issue in 'shambles'?
The Supreme Court agrees not to take a case on whether memorial crosses on public land in Utah violate the First Amendment. But one justice says the court has left the topic in legal limbo.
(Page 2 of 2)
“The fact that all of the fallen UHP troopers are memorialized with a Christian symbol conveys the message that there is some connection between the UHP and Christianity,” Judge Ebel said. “This may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP – both in their hiring practices and, more generally, in the treatment that people may expect to receive on Utah’s highways.”Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The judge added: “We agree that a reasonable observer would recognize these memorial crosses as symbols of death. However, we do not agree that this nullifies their religious sectarian content because a memorial cross is not a generic symbol of death; it is a Christian symbol of death that signifies or memorializes the death of a Christian.”
In urging the high court to review the 10th Circuit’s decision, lawyers for Utah said the appeals court applied the wrong legal test to determine the constitutionality of the roadside crosses. Supreme Court precedent requires lower courts to consider how the display would be viewed by a “reasonable observer.”
“Contrary to [the US Supreme Court’s] reasonable observer, the Tenth Circuit’s observer is biased, selectively ignorant, and manifestly hostile to religious imagery,” wrote R. Ted Cruz in a brief on behalf of Utah public officials.
Mr. Cruz suggested the time had arrived for the Supreme Court to jettison the so-called endorsement test conceived by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Under the endorsement test, judges examine whether a “reasonable observer” would conclude that the state was endorsing religion.
Instead, Cruz said, the court should rely on a coercion test as suggested by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The basic principle is that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion but government may not also give a direct benefit to religion. The coercion test would be more permissive of religious symbols on public property.
It appears a majority of justices are not prepared to take that step.
In a decision handed down in April 2010, Justice Kennedy expressed his view of a less restrictive endorsement test.
“The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm,” Kennedy wrote in a plurality decision involving a memorial cross on federal land in the Mojave Desert.
He added: “A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs.”
“The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society,” Kennedy said. “Rather, it leaves room to accommodate divergent values within a constitutionally permissible framework.”
Lawyers for American Atheists disagreed with this approach. “A reasonable observer viewing the Utah memorial crosses would see a Latin cross – an obvious and widely recognized symbol of Christianity – with the conspicuous UHP "beehive" logo, but no context or history that conveys anything but a message of government endorsement of the Christian religion,” said Brian Barnard of the Utah Civil Rights & Liberties Foundation in his brief urging the high court not to take up the case.
“Far from conveying a predominantly secular message the principal message that the crosses convey is that the State memorializes fallen UHP troopers with a Christian symbol.”
The cases were Davenport v. American Atheists (10-1297) and Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists (10-1276).
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.