Salazar v. Buono
Salazar v. Buono | |
---|---|
Questions presented | |
Whether an individual has Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and if an Act of Congress directing the land be transferred to a private entity is a permissible accommodation. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Plurality | Kennedy, joined by Roberts; Alito (in part) |
Concurrence | Roberts |
Concurrence | Alito (in part) |
Concurrence | Scalia (in judgment), joined by Thomas |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor |
Dissent | Breyer |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010), was a decision by the
Background
The cross
Currently, there is a cross atop Sunrise Rock that is between 5 and 8 feet (1.5 and 2.4 m) tall and is constructed out of 4-inch-diameter (100 mm) metal pipes painted white. Historical records reflect that a wooden cross was built on that location as early as 1934 by the
Action by the National Park Service and Congress
In 1999, NPS received a request from an individual seeking to build a
In 1999, NPS undertook a study of the history of the cross. NPS determined that neither the cross nor the property on which it is situated qualifies for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Specifically, NPS recognized that the cross itself “has been replaced many times and the plaque that once accompanied it (even though it is not known if it is original) has been removed.” Also, the property does not qualify as an historical site because, among other things, “the site is used for religious purposes as well as commemoration.” Following the announcement by NPS of its intention to remove the cross, the United States Congress passed a series of laws to preserve the Sunrise Rock cross. The first piece of legislation, enacted in December 2000, provided that no government funds could be used to remove the cross.[3]
Lawsuit and injunction
Frank Buono, a former NPS employee, filed suit in March 2001 against the Secretary of the
Further congressional action
In January 2002, while this matter was pending in district court, Congress passed a defense appropriations bill, which included a section designating the Sunrise Rock cross as a “national memorial.”[5]
In October 2002, less than three months after the district court's injunction, in legislation aimed at the Sunrise Rock cross, Congress passed a defense appropriations bill that included a provision barring the use of federal funds “to dismantle national memorials commemorating United States participation in World War I.”[6]
In September 2003 Congress enacted another defense appropriations bill that included a land exchange agreement regarding the Sunrise Rock cross in which an acre of land containing the cross was conveyed to the Veterans Home of California— Barstow, Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #385E in consideration for 5 acres (2.0 ha) of land.[7] The government retained a reversionary interest in the property subject to a condition that the recipient maintain the conveyed property as a memorial commemorating United States participation in World War I and honoring the American veterans of that war.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions
In June 2004, the
United States Supreme Court ruling
On April 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the cross may stay but also sent the case back to a lower court.[1] Writing for the plurality of the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm".[12]
Aftermath
Only eleven days after the Supreme Court decision, the cross was stolen during the overnight of May 9–10, 2010; its theft is believed [by whom?] to be related to those who opposed the cross, but no arrests have been made to date (as the cross was filled with concrete, it would have been worthless for resale).[13][14] National Park Service spokeswoman Linda Slater said a $25,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the thieves; the reward was later increased to $100,000. The VFW promised that the memorial will be rebuilt. "This was a legal fight that a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel and their families," National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell said.[15] On May 20, a replica cross was discovered to have been erected in place of the original. Park officials said it was erected overnight, but because of the court ruling park employees would have to remove the replica.[16] Another lawsuit was filed to expedite the land transfer.
In April 2012, a land exchange to remove Sunrise Rock from the Mojave National Preserve was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.[17]
See also
- Mount Soledad Cross lawsuits, lengthy legal battle also related to the First Amendment regarding the cross located near San Diego, California
- Mount Davidson (California) § The cross, legal challenges to the Mount Davidson Cross in San Francisco
- Mount Rubidoux § Legal Battle, legal challenge to the cross atop the mountain
- Serra Cross (Ventura, California), cross on public land in Ventura, California, which was the subject of litigation
References
- ^ a b High court says Mojave cross in Calif. can stay, Washington Post, 2010-4-28.
- ^ The regulation provides that: “The installation of a monument, memorial, tablet, structure, or other commemorative installation in a park area without the authorization of the Director is prohibited.” 36 C.F.R. § 2.62(a).
- ^ Pub. L. No. 106-554 § 133, 114 Stat. 2763A-230 (2000)
- ^ Buono v. Norton, 212 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1215-17 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
- ^ Pub.L. No. 107-117 § 8137, 115 Stat. 2278-79 (2002), codified at 16 U.S.C. § 410aaa-56 (note)
- ^ Pub. L. No. 107-248 § 8065(b), 116 Stat.1551 (2002)
- ^ Pub. L. No. 108-87 § 8121(a)-(f), 117 Stat. 1100 (2003), codified at 16 U.S.C. § 410aaa-56 (note)
- ^ Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2004).
- ^ Buono v. Norton, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1175, 1177, 1182 & n.8 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
- ^ a b Buono, 364 F. Supp. 2d at 1182 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
- ^ Buono v. Kempthorne, 502 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2007).
- ^ "Supreme Court Keeps Mojave Cross Case Alive". ABC News. Archived from the original on August 18, 2022.
- ^ Caretakers of Stolen Mojave Desert Cross Vow to Replace It
- ^ Vandals tear down cross that justices would not
- ^ "Disputed Mojave cross honoring US war dead stolen - Yahoo! News". news.yahoo.com. Archived from the original on May 14, 2010.
- ^ Bill Mears (May 20, 2010). "Replica of missing Mojave cross mysteriously erected". CNN. Retrieved June 10, 2022.
- ^ Curwen, Thomas (April 25, 2012). "Ruling will allow Mojave Desert outcropping to again feature a cross". Los Angeles Times.
External links
- Text of Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion
- Salazar v. Buono at Scotuswiki