WASHINGTON – In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today remanded a case concerning a Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve back to the district court, saying that the lower court used the wrong legal standard in deciding to invalidate a transfer of the land on which the cross stands to private ownership. The American Civil Liberties Union will continue to argue that the transfer does not remedy the government’s unconstitutional endorsement of one particular religion.

The case, Salazar v. Buono, stems from a complaint raised by veteran and former National Park Service employee Frank Buono, who claimed that the presence of an overtly religious symbol on federal land represented unconstitutional favoritism toward a specific religion.

“Although we're disappointed that the Court did not simply affirm the district court’s ruling that the land transfer was impermissible, we're encouraged that the case is not over,” said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney and Manheim Family Attorney for First Amendment Rights at the ACLU of Southern California, who argued the case. “The cross is unquestionably a sectarian symbol, and we respectfully but strongly disagree with the suggestion by some members of the court that it does not favor one religion.”

“The Latin cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity, and there are more appropriate ways for the government to honor veterans of all faiths,” said Daniel Mach, Director of the ACLU Program for Freedom of Religion and Belief.

The case originated in 2001 as a challenge to the presence of a Latin cross on federally owned land in the Mojave National Preserve, about 125 miles northeast of Los Angeles, California. In 2002, while the federal district court case was pending, Congress designated the cross as a national memorial, one of only 49 such memorials around the country. Others include Mount Rushmore, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, although the Mojave cross would be the only one dedicated to soldiers who fought and died in World War I. In an apparent attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause violation, Congress also transferred one acre of land on which the cross stands to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, with the provision that the VFW continue to maintain it as a war memorial.

The court did not take up the issue of whether Buono had “standing” to bring the case, and as a result, the decision does not bar private citizens from challenging the constitutionality of religious displays on government property in the future.

Photo: The Latin cross atop Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve on April, 2009. Peter J. Eliasberg

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, was the first civic leader to call for Gates to resign in the wake of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and Gates sometimes referred to her as “Ramona Ripoff.” The following is a statement from Ripston on his death:

Daryl Gates failed to react to a changing Los Angeles and a changing culture in policing. At a time of great unrest in our city, he was a lightning rod for criticism and controversy, and deservedly so, in part because of his penchant for making disturbing, overly broad statements. He inherited a police department with little respect for minority communities or for civil liberties and civil rights, and he continued that legacy throughout his career.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – On Tuesday, a majority of Lancaster voters approved a ballot measure in support of religious prayers at the invocation of city meetings. The ACLU of Southern California opposes the unlawful and divisive use of sectarian prayers at official government meetings of any kind, because the practice violates one of the most basic tenets of the Constitution: the Establishment Clause, which clearly prohibits government from showing favoritism toward any religion. A prayer in the name of Jesus or a Hindu god or any other religious deity also alienates followers of other denominations, as well as nonbelievers.

“In a constitutional democracy such as the United States of America, some basic rights are protected by the Constitution and cannot be determined by a vote,” said Peter Eliasberg, ACLU/SC managing attorney and Manheim Family Attorney for First Amendment Rights. “For example, a majority of voters could not outlaw Republican political rallies, or ban the construction of mosques, temples or churches within city limits.

“We are deeply concerned about the direction Lancaster city leaders have taken in calling for and supporting this ballot measure. No court in the land has ever approved a city’s attempt to specifically authorize sectarian prayers prior to city meetings. If the Lancaster City Council continues its policy of allowing sectarian prayers prior to meetings, we will explore all legal avenues to determine how to proceed.”