Supreme Court Rules Against Offended Park Ranger in Mojave Cross Case
In a fractured decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned an injunction that prevented the government from transferring parkland containing a cross to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
The court found park service employee Frank Buono had standing to sue, but said a federal court was wrong to bar transfer of the land now in the Mojave National Preserve. Buono had asserted he was offended by the cross and had contended the land deal was aimed at bypassing the establishment clause.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the plurality decision, saying the district court did not examine the relevant issues before issuing an injunction. He said the district court should conduct a “proper inquiry” on remand. Two of the five justices who agreed the lower court erred, however, based their decision on another reason: Their view was that Buono had no standing to sue.
There were four dissenters who would have supported the injunction, the Associated Press reports. SCOTUSblog had an early summary of the holding.
Kennedy said the district court that issued the injunction did not acknowledge the significance of the cross. It was erected to honor servicemen who died in World War I, rather than to promote a Christian message, he said in a portion of the plurality opinion (PDF) that was joined by two concurring justices.
“Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion,” he wrote. “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.”
Kennedy’s view was at odds with three of the dissenters, who saw religious significance in the cross. “I certainly agree that the nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I, but it cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. His dissent was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Kennedy said the district court enjoined the land transfer based on its suspicion of an illicit governmental purpose. But there were other reasons for the transfer, he said.
“The land-transfer statute embodies Congress’s legislative judgment that this dispute is best resolved through a framework and policy of accommodation for a symbol that, while challenged under the establishment clause, has complex meaning beyond the expression of religious views,” Kennedy wrote. Such a judgment should not be overturned absent a clear showing of unconstitutionality, he said.
Even if the transfer is deemed improper, the district court should consider alternatives, Kennedy said. He pointed to one example: A sign could be erected to indicate the land was owned by the VFW.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote separately to say he would allow the land transfer without further inquiry. Justices Antonin Scalia, in a separate concurrence joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said Buono did not have standing, and as a result the injunction was in error.
Writing in a separate dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the case was governed by the law of injunctions, and the establishment clause and standing issues did not need to be addressed.
The case is Salazar v. Buono.
Additional coverage:
Los Angeles Times: “Supreme Court says Mojave cross can stand”
Bloomberg: “Cross in National Preserve Backed by U.S. High Court”
Wall Street Journal: “High Court Says Mojave Desert Cross Can Remain”
National Public Radio: “Supreme Court Sends ‘Mojave Cross’ Case Back For More Work”
