.jpg)
The cross in the Mojave Desert.
Related Articles
On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court will spend one hour listening to oral arguments on a case involving a war memorial in the Mojave Desert. What makes this war memorial, built by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) over 70 years ago, so controversial that it warrants an oral argument before the US Supreme Court? The war memorial happens to be an eight-foot tall wooden cross.
The controversy swirls around a 1999 decision by the National Park Service denying a request to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross. When the National Park Service indicated that it was planning on removing the cross, Congress stepped in and designated the cross and a small area surrounding it as a national World War I memorial.
After the congressional move to save the cross, the lawsuits started. First, a district court held that Congress’s action was a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Congress then took a second course of action and instructed the Department of the Interior to convey the one-acre of property – including the cross – to the VFW. This did not satisfy the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who determined that the cross and land transfer violated the Establishment Clause. Though the US Supreme Court will have the final say in the matter, the Ninth Circuit has ordered the cross’s removal.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has filed an amicus brief representing 15 members of Congress. The fifteen members of the 111th Congress are Minority Leader john Boehner, Todd Akin, Michele Bachmann, Roy Blunt, Eric Cantor, Randy Forbes, Scott Garrett, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Doug Lambor, Thadeus McCotter, Jeff Miller, Mike Pence, Joseph Pitts, and Joe Wilson. The ACLJ, on behalf of these members of Congress, is asking the US Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit and save this small, but significant, memorial to those who have sacrificed their lives for our country.
The lawsuit was brought by a former National Park Service employee – not on the basis of an Establishment Clause violation – because he thought the area should be a public forum. There are two main questions the US Supreme Court will consider. First, was their standing to bring this action even though the former employee was not harmed and did not reject to the religious nature of the cross? And, if the Court finds that he does have standing, did the ninth Circuit err when it prevented Congress’s conveyance of the land to the VFW?
The ACLJ’s position is clear from the language in our amicus brief: “This case is only the most extreme example of a phenomenon that has plagued the federal courts for the past three decades. Ideologically motivated citizens and public interest groups search out alleged Establishment Clause violations, almost always in the form of a passive religious symbol or display of some sort, and make a federal case out of offense at the display.”
The ACLJ’s brief can be read here: http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/SalazarBrief_June.pdf
Jordan Sekulow is the Director of International Operations for the American Center for Law & Justice and the co-host of Jay Sekulow Live. Follow Jordan on Twitter at www.twitter.com/JordanSekulow.
Comments