{"id":182,"date":"2009-06-08T15:55:40","date_gmt":"2009-06-08T15:55:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html"},"modified":"2009-06-08T15:55:40","modified_gmt":"2009-06-08T15:55:40","slug":"supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court: Keep Cross & Reject Establishment Clause Challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"

Barry, we’ve discussed this before, but I wanted to bring you an update on our filing at the Supreme Court of the United States.  <\/span>In the case of Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono, we have filed an amicus brief in support of the federal government’s position – and on behalf of 15 members of Congress – asking the high court to uphold the long-standing cross display in Mojave Desert in California.<\/font><\/p>\n

In our brief<\/a>  <\/span>we make a strong argument that this challenge has no place in federal court.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

“This case is only the most extreme example of a phenomenon that has plagued the federal courts for the past three decades,” the brief asserts.  <\/span>“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.”<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The brief also contends that those who are offended by government speech or displays should not be permitted to use an Establishment Clause claim to seek relief in federal court.  <\/span>And, Barry, you may not like it, but the fact is that the lax rules governing who can sue under the Establishment Clause are not consistent with the Constitution and separation of powers doctrine.<\/font><\/p>\n

“The basis for standing is typically that the religious display offends the sensibilities of the plaintiffs,” according to the brief.  <\/span>“The offense may be characterized as an affront to religious values, or as one in which plaintiffs feel stigmatized as political or community outsiders.  <\/span>But the sum and substance of the injury is that the display bothers the plaintiffs.”  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

In addition to representing our organization, we represent 15 members of the 111th Congress – including House Minority Leader John Boehner.  <\/span>Also included are these members of the U.S. House of Representatives:  <\/span>Todd Akin, Michele Bachmann, Roy Blunt, Eric Cantor, Randy Forbes, Scott Garrett, Walter Jones, Jim Jordan, Doug Lamborn, Thaddeus McCotter, Jeff Miller, Mike Pence, Joseph Pitts, and Joe Wilson.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

The history of this case goes back many years.  <\/span>The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) built a cross more than 70 years ago 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.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

A lawsuit was filed challenging the cross and, after the federal 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.  <\/span>But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that the cross – and the land transfer – violated the Establishment Clause and ordered it removed.<\/font><\/p>\n

The truth is the high court should reject this legal challenge and conclude that the government’s action is not only appropriate but constitutional in this case. It’s time for the high court to put an end to this disturbing practice of permitting the ‘offended observer’ from filing these Establishment Clause claims.<\/p>\n

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click <\/font>here<\/font><\/a>.<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Barry, we’ve discussed this before, but I wanted to bring you an update on our filing at the Supreme Court of the United States.  In the case of Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono, we have filed an amicus brief in support of the federal government’s position – and on behalf of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,75,66,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-congress","category-establishment-clause","category-religious-displays","category-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court: Keep Cross & Reject Establishment Clause Challenge - 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\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court: Keep Cross & Reject Establishment Clause Challenge - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Barry, we’ve discussed this before, but I wanted to bring you an update on our filing at the Supreme Court of the United States.  In the case of Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono, we have filed an amicus brief in support of the federal government’s position – and on behalf of…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-08T15:55:40+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":"Supreme Court: Keep Cross & Reject Establishment Clause Challenge - 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\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court: Keep Cross & Reject Establishment Clause Challenge - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"Barry, we’ve discussed this before, but I wanted to bring you an update on our filing at the Supreme Court of the United States.  In the case of Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono, we have filed an amicus brief in support of the federal government’s position – and on behalf of…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2009-06-08T15:55:40+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\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html","name":"Supreme Court: Keep Cross & Reject Establishment Clause Challenge - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-08T15:55:40+00:00","dateModified":"2009-06-08T15:55:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/06\/supreme-court-keep-cross-rejec.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court: Keep Cross & Reject Establishment Clause Challenge"}]},{"@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\/182","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=182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}