{"id":169,"date":"2009-05-08T16:45:51","date_gmt":"2009-05-08T16:45:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html"},"modified":"2009-05-08T16:45:51","modified_gmt":"2009-05-08T16:45:51","slug":"finalizing-arguments-in-suprem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html","title":{"rendered":"Finalizing Arguments in Supreme Court Church\/State Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Barry, we’re preparing to file an amicus brief in a matter of weeks in a case that I know you are closely watching at the Supreme Court.  <\/span>The high court <\/a>agreed in February to take the case of Salazar v. Buono<\/em>, which involves a challenge to a memorial cross displayed in the Mojave National Preserve in California.<\/font><\/p>\n

The case will affect the legal standing of those who seek to challenge government displays that include symbols with some religious significance as well as the government’s ability to cure actual or potential Establishment Clause violations through a sale of land to private parties.  <\/span>Like many of these cases, this one has a long history and a lengthy legal battle.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Over 70 years ago, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) built a cross to memorialize fallen service members in a remote area that is now part of a federal preserve. After the National Park Service denied a request to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross in 1999 and declared its intent to remove the cross, Congress designated the cross and an area of adjoining property as a national World War I memorial.<\/font><\/p>\n

With the assistance of the ACLU, a former Parks Service employee challenged the government’s maintenance of the memorial on Establishment Clause grounds. The plaintiff did not object to the cross itself on religious grounds; rather, his objection was ideological, as he thought that the area should be converted into a public forum open for private groups to build a variety of monuments.<\/font><\/p>\n

After the district court held that the federal government’s display of the cross violated the Establishment Clause, Congress directed the Department of the Interior to convey one acre of property that included the memorial to the VFW in exchange for a five-acre parcel of equal value. It is common for the government to sell property containing symbols with religious significance to private parties in order to cure an actual or potential Establishment Clause violation.<\/font><\/p>\n

In response, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the sale of the property to the VFW did not cure the alleged violation of the Establishment Clause because the land could revert back to the federal government if the site ever ceases to be used as a war memorial. When the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s request for the full appeals court to reconsider the case, five judges dissented and noted that the Ninth Circuit’s decision was in conflict with decisions of the Seventh Circuit regarding the government’s authority to sell land to cure an Establishment Clause violation. The dissenters also noted that the cross has the secular purpose of memorializing fallen soldiers.<\/font><\/p>\n

In asking the Supreme Court to take the case, the government’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari included the following two questions:<\/font><\/p>\n

1. Whether respondent has standing to maintain this action where he has no objection to the public display of a cross, but instead is offended that the public land on which the cross is located is not also an open forum on which other persons might display other symbols.<\/font><\/p>\n

2. Whether, even assuming respondent has standing, the court of appeals erred in refusing to give effect to the Act of Congress providing for the transfer of the land to private hands.<\/font><\/p>\n

I’m sure you’ll agree that this is a very important case with wide-ranging ramifications.  <\/span>We’re filing our brief with the high court in support of the government’s position in a matter of weeks.  <\/span>We’ll be representing members of Congress and thousands of Americans who understand the fact that there’s nothing unconstitutional about this memorial.<\/font><\/p>\n

Our position is clear:  <\/span>we’ll argue that the cross memorial is constitutional – the land transfer was appropriate and a sound solution to the problem.  <\/span>We’ll be asking the Supreme Court – which will presumably include Justice Souter’s replacement by the time this case is heard next term – to keep this cross memorial in place.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click <\/font>here<\/font><\/a>.<\/font><\/span><\/span> <\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Barry, we’re preparing to file an amicus brief in a matter of weeks in a case that I know you are closely watching at the Supreme Court.  The high court agreed in February to take the case of Salazar v. Buono, which involves a challenge to a memorial cross displayed in the Mojave National Preserve in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,66,5,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-religious-displays","category-separation-of-church-and-state","category-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFinalizing Arguments in Supreme Court Church\/State Case - Lynn v. Sekulow<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Finalizing Arguments in Supreme Court Church\/State Case - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Barry, we’re preparing to file an amicus brief in a matter of weeks in a case that I know you are closely watching at the Supreme Court.  The high court agreed in February to take the case of Salazar v. Buono, which involves a challenge to a memorial cross displayed in the Mojave National Preserve in…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-08T16:45:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Finalizing Arguments in Supreme Court Church\/State Case - Lynn v. Sekulow","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Finalizing Arguments in Supreme Court Church\/State Case - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"Barry, we’re preparing to file an amicus brief in a matter of weeks in a case that I know you are closely watching at the Supreme Court.  The high court agreed in February to take the case of Salazar v. Buono, which involves a challenge to a memorial cross displayed in the Mojave National Preserve in…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2009-05-08T16:45:51+00:00","author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html","name":"Finalizing Arguments in Supreme Court Church\/State Case - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-08T16:45:51+00:00","dateModified":"2009-05-08T16:45:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/05\/finalizing-arguments-in-suprem.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Finalizing Arguments in Supreme Court Church\/State Case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/","name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","description":"A debate blog about church, state, faith and politics with Jay Sekulow and Barry W. Lynn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf","name":"Jay Sekulow","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","caption":"Jay Sekulow"},"description":"Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law.  He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice.  As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity. An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation.  In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses.  In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.  And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.  Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.  The ACLJ, under Sekulow's direction, is involved in public interest and public policy issues working to protect religious and constitutional liberties. In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has \"led the way\" in Christian legal advocacy.  In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America and called the ACLJ \"a powerful counterweight\" to the ACLU.  Business Week said the ACLJ is \"the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.\"  Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal.  In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \"100 Most Influential Lawyers\" in the United States (1994, 1997).  He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as \"The Public Sector 45\" named by The American Lawyer (January\/February 1997).  The magazine said the designation represents \"45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.\" Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations.  Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet.  Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS.  He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member.  Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.  In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court. He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles. Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/author\/jsekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}