WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the high school football coach who fought for his right to pray after games, and overturned a decision that had long restricted religious expression in public schools. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Bremerton School District fired Coach Kennedy from his coaching position after school officials decided his quiet, midfield post-game prayer was “coercive” and “divisive” speech that violated the Establishment Clause.  

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, explaining that “[t]he only way to escape future Establishment Clause confusion” is to overrule the Lemon test. In place of Lemon, Becket explained that the Court should apply our nation’s tradition of free exercise even on school or government grounds. Muslims and Sikhs wear beards, Orthodox Jews wear yarmulkes, and Catholics carry rosaries or wear crucifixes. Forcing prayer into a private booth—the “solution” offered to Coach Kennedy before the Supreme Court intervened—is contrary to the best traditions protected by the First Amendment. 

“We must always remember the importance of prayer in American life,” said Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty. “The freedom to pray is essential to the moral duty all people possess toward the truth. The Court’s decision to prevent the forced expulsion of voluntary prayer from public life is a major victory for all Americans who wish to discover and live the truth.” 

In its opinion, the Supreme Court wrote that “[r]espect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head.” Coach Kennedy, the Court held, was pursued by the government “for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses.” 

The Court also pointed out that Coach Kennedy had observed this tradition for years and did not force any of his players to join him. In addition, he made sure his team knew it was optional, and did not play favorites to those athletes that decided to partake in his prayer. All Kennedy wanted to do was retain his position as head coach while adhering to his faith, a right shared by all Americans. Nothing about this is unconstitutional coercion. As the Supreme Court held, “‘[o]ffense does not equate to coercion.’”  

Becket’s brief had also asked the Court to strike out the Lemon test, a vague legal standard used to decide Establishment Clause cases. The Court confirmed that Lemon has long been dead, and that the Establishment Clause is understood through America’s history and tradition of religious pluralism. 

“Since our Founding, our constitutional tradition upholds public religious expression as a natural part of human life and culture,” said William Haun, senior counsel at Becket. “Scrubbing religious expression from the public square, based on nothing more than offense, is as unnatural as it is unconstitutional.” 

Coach Kennedy was represented at the Supreme Court by First Liberty Institute, Paul Clement and Erin Murphy of Clement Murphy PLLC, Spencer Fane LLP, and The Helsdon Law Firm, PLLC.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

WASHINGTON – Becket just filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, urging the Supreme Court to protect a person’s right to pray in public.

The brief — filed on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — supports Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach from Bremerton, Washington. Kennedy had a practice of quietly praying after the close of each football game but was ordered by school officials to stop praying or engaging in conduct that appeared religious in nature.

Public prayer has long been a staple of American life. Laymen, clergymen, statesmen and private citizens throughout American history have prayed publicly over everything from lunch to armed conflict. But Coach Kennedy was told by school officials that his personal prayers somehow violated the Constitution because onlookers might feel uncomfortable.

“The Constitution exists to protect public expressions of faith, not to stop Americans from praying in public,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket. “The idea that high school football players can handle a tough game, but not the sight of someone kneeling in prayer at the end of the night, is ridiculous.”

Unfortunately, Bremerton school officials suspended Coach Kennedy. When he filed a lawsuit in response, the school officials argued that his personal prayer after football games was an endorsement of religion by the school district and constituted “coercion” against those who might happen to see him praying. But visible outward expressions of faith are common, and even required in many religious traditions. Equating the public display of religion with “coercion” would effectively close the public square to Orthodox Jews who wear yarmulkes, Catholics who cross themselves and carry rosaries, and Muslims who grow beards. Becket’s brief points to history and Supreme Court precedent to show that these forms of religious expression have always been protected, not barred, by the Constitution.

“If there’s one thing more American than football, it’s religious freedom,” said Windham. “We hope the Supreme Court confirms what everyone with common sense knows: when a Christian coach kneels in prayer, or a Sikh schoolteacher wears a kirpan, or a Muslim principal fasts for Ramadan, they are expressing their faith, not establishing a religion.”

Coach Kennedy is represented at the Supreme Court by First Liberty Institute, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Spencer Fane LLP, and The Helsdon Law Firm, PLLC.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – It turns out the ACLU can’t cancel Baby Jesus. A federal appeals court just ruled that the nativity scene at the Jackson County courthouse can stay, making it one of the first federal appeals courts to apply the Supreme Court’s recognition that religious displays like nativity scenes are allowed their place in the public square. The three wise men and the shepherds can now rest easy.     

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that the County’s display “fits within a long national tradition of using the nativity scene in broader holiday displays to ‘depict the historical origins’ of Christmas—a ‘traditional event long recognized as a National Holiday.’” 

Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of the group that owns the nativity scene, the Brownstown Area Ministerial Association, explaining that the lower court had incorrectly applied the Lemon test when it decided the nativity scene should be removed from the courthouse. Becket’s view is in line with the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that the Lemon test no longer applies to religious displays. The government is instead allowed to recognize the role religion has played—and continues to play—in our society. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit’s opinion is clear: the Establishment Clause does not compel the government to sweep the public square clean of religious content.  

“Most people don’t think Christmas decorations ought to be a federal issue,” said Diana Verm, Senior Counsel at Becket. “This decision doesn’t just follow Supreme Court precedent, it also follows common sense: the Establishment Clause protects against coercive government action, not harmless displays of holiday cheer.” 

The Brownstown Area Ministerial Association first purchased the display in question in 2003, and it serves as part of the local “Hometown Christmas celebration,” an opportunity for members of the community to gather together around the courthouse, listen to the high school choir, judge Christmas tree decorations, and eat sweets. But in 2018, an out-of-town passerby drove through the area and was offended by the display. Legal threats and a lawsuit by the ACLU of Indiana threatened to stop the nearly two-decade-old display in its tracks.  

Two other courts have applied the Supreme Court’s American Legion decision to uphold religious displays in Becket cases. This is the third federal appeals to uphold a religious display.  

WASHINGTON – A local group of ministers in Brownstown, Indiana is defending a beloved nativity scene from an out-of-town stranger represented by the ACLU. After driving by the nativity scene in the close-knit community of Brownstown, the out-of-towner felt offended by the mere sight of the display in the town square and sued the county. Despite the landmark Supreme Court decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, which protects public religious symbols, fights like this over popular traditions with religious elements haven’t subsided. Should the outsider and the ACLU prevail at the federal court of appeals, the small town of nearly 3,000 residents will be stripped of a beloved local tradition.

In Woodring v. Jackson County, the district court applied an outdated legal rule (the Lemon test) and struck down the display. Now on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, Becket (representing the Ministerial Association), filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the nativity scene, which is part of a broader “Hometown Holiday” display that includes Santa, carolers, and several reindeer. Becket’s brief explains that the Supreme Court meant what it said in American Legion: governments need not scrub the public square of references to religion. They are instead permitted to recognize the role religion has played—and continues to play—in our society.

“The annual nativity isn’t just a beloved holiday tradition, it’s a symbol of unity and God’s “goodwill to all men” during the Christmas season, said Doug Pogue, President, Brownstown Area Ministerial Association. “In a time of such fear and uncertainty in our country, it’s heartbreaking to think that our town could lose this important symbol of hope.”

Since 2019, three courts of appeals have applied American Legion to uphold religious symbols in the public square. If the nativity scene here is struck down, the Seventh Circuit will have ventured off on its own path, splitting from this consensus regarding American Legion’s meaning.

“Scrubbing religious symbols from the public square isn’t neutral—but hostile to religion,” said Diana Verm, senior counsel at Becket. “Three courts of appeals have already followed the Supreme Court’s lead and recognized that principle. We are confident that the Seventh Circuit will follow suit and preserve this beloved local display.”

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – A historic World War II-era cross in Pensacola, Florida, will remain standing thanks to a victory at the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals today. In Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola, an atheist group sued the City of Pensacola to remove the monument, which has been standing since 1941. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, protecting a World War I memorial cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the cross is constitutional, acknowledging that that it has become “embedded in the fabric of the Pensacola community” and that removing it could “strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”

The Bayview Cross is one of over 170 displays in Pensacola parks memorializing the City’s diverse history and culture. In 2016, four individuals, represented by the American Humanist Association, sued the City, demanding the cross be torn down, even though three of the individuals do not live in Pensacola and the fourth has held his own ceremonies at the cross. The trial court and an earlier decision by the Eleventh Circuit reluctantly agreed that the cross was unconstitutional under the notorious Lemon test (see video), which has often been successfully invoked by anti-religious plaintiffs to push religion out of the public square. Earlier this year, however, the Supreme Court ordered the Eleventh Circuit to rethink its ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in American Legion, which finally scrapped the Lemon test in cases involving longstanding symbols.

“The Supreme Court has now made clear that religious symbols are an important part of our nation’s history and culture,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket.

The 78-year-old cross was built in the City’s Bayview Park in 1941, as the U.S. prepared to enter WWII, as a place for the community to unite. Since then, Pensacola citizens have held community events such as Easter sunrise services, Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day remembrances, and other voluntary gatherings at the monument, which has become a significant symbol for the Pensacola community.

“Pensacola is a city with a rich and diverse history. The Bayview Cross is an important part of that history as a symbol of our community’s coming together during a national crisis,” said Grover C. Robinson IV, mayor of Pensacola. “We are pleased by the court’s ruling in this case, and today we celebrate our long-awaited victory and the preservation of the Bayview Cross.”

In the June 2019 Supreme Court ruling upholding the World War I memorial cross in Maryland, Justices cited Becket’s friend-of-the-court brief multiple times. Becket has also successfully defended a statue of Jesus in Montana commemorating fallen World War II soldiers, a historic cross artifact at Ground Zero, and a Pennsylvania county seal.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, is free to continue honoring its history and culture with its 70-year-old seal, including an image of a Latin cross. In FFRF v. Lehigh County, a federal appellate court today rejected an attempt by the Wisconsin-based atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation to censor the image of a cross from Lehigh County’s historic seal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia ruled 3-0 that after the Supreme Court upheld the Bladensburg Cross war memorial as a historic monument, Lehigh County can maintain its seal as a symbol that “has become part of the community.”

Lehigh County’s seal, which has been in use for over 70 years without any complaints, features a cross representing the county’s early German settlers who fled persecution in their homeland seeking religious freedom in America. The seal also features over a dozen other images – such as grain silos, textiles, the Liberty Bell, and a red heart – representing important aspects of the county’s rich history and culture. Becket represented Lehigh County, arguing that the Constitution allows communities to maintain religious symbols in the public square in recognition of the significant role of religion in our history and culture.

“It is common sense that religion played a role in the lives of our nation’s early settlers. Recognizing that is just as constitutional as honoring symbols like the Liberty Bell,’” said Diana Verm, senior counsel at Becket. “It is only right that Lehigh County can continue honoring its history and culture.”

Images of historic significance are common on the seals and flags of states, counties, and towns across America. But in 2016, FFRF sued trying to censor the cross from Lehigh County’s seal. In September 2017, a federal judge ruled in FFRF’s favor, following a Supreme Court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which requires courts to guess whether the government is trying to “endorse” religion whenever it mentions God or religion (What is the Lemon Test? Watch this short video).

Becket argues that judges must apply the actual text and historical meaning of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has since moved away from the so-called Lemon test, ruling that religious symbols in government and in the public square that were acceptable at our nation’s founding are still acceptable today. The court today followed that precedent. Becket has also defended a World War II religious memorial in a Montana ski resort, a 9/11 Ground Zero cross artifact, and a historic Pensacola park cross monument, among others.

“This decision is another nail in the coffin of the Lemon test, making room for our nation’s founding principle that religion is not a blight to be scrubbed from the public square, especially when it represents our history,” said Verm.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today ordered a lower court to rethink its earlier ruling against a historic World War II-era cross in Pensacola, Florida. In Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola, a federal appeals court had ruled that the 78-year-old cross must come down, with two of the three judges saying that the outcome was “wrong” but that their “hands were tied” because of the notorious Lemon test (see video). In today’s order, the Supreme Court instructed the lower court to reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding another cross monument in Bladensburg, Maryland. 

In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, decided last week, the Supreme Court rejected an atheist group’s attempt to tear down a nearly 100-year-old World War I memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland, known as the “Peace Cross.” In its 7–2 decision, the Court refused to apply the Lemon test, instead adopting a “strong presumption of constitutionality” for longstanding monuments. The ruling recognized that a “government that roams the land, tearing down” religious symbols “will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion,” which the Constitution does not require. The Court today told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to apply these same principles to the cross in Pensacola.  

“The Supreme Court’s order is an encouraging sign that the Bayview cross can stay in Pensacola just like the Peace Cross can stay in Maryland,” said  Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “We fully expect the lower court to follow the Supreme Court’s lead.” 

A wooden cross was first placed in Pensacola’s Bayview Park in 1941 by the Jaycees, a local community service group, as the U.S. prepared to enter World War II. The cross has been a popular gathering place for over 75 years and is one of over 170 displays in Pensacola’s parks commemorating the city’s history and culture. In 2016, an atheist organization sued the city, claiming that the cross is “offensive” and establishes a government religion. 

Becket is representing the City of Pensacola free of charge together with Stanford Law Professor and former Tenth Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell. The city is also represented by J. Nixon Daniel, III, and Terrie L. Didier of Beggs & Lane. 

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact  Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.  

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Moments ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in favor of a nearly 100-year-old World War I memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland, known as the “Peace Cross,” allowing it to remain standing. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a group of anti-religious atheists had sued to tear down the memorial, claiming that it was offensive and “endorsed” religion. The Court’s opinion overturns a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit against the Peace Cross and states that, for many, “destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment.”

In its friend-of-the-court brief, Becket urged the Supreme Court to abandon the Lemon test and uphold the cross based on the historical understanding of what constituted an “establishment” of religion at the time of the nation’s founding (watch video here). In their opinion, the Justices agreed that religious expression in the public square has been common throughout our history and need not be erased just because it includes religious elements. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch both cited Becket’s brief in their concurring opinions.

“The Supreme Court rightly recognized that religious symbols are an important part of our nation’s history and culture,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “We look forward to the coming gap in cable-news programming, as atheist organizations that made bank by suing over harmless religious symbols find a new line of work and learn to look the other way.”

The Bladensburg memorial was designed by mothers who lost their sons in the World War I and was erected in 1925 on private land with funds raised by the American Legion, a military veterans association. In 2014, the American Humanist Association, an anti-religion activist group, sued to tear down the Peace Cross. The same group also sued to tear down a World War II cross monument in Pensacola, Florida, in a case the Court is expected to act on soon.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which maintains the cross, is represented by Hogan Lovells. The American Legion is represented by Jones Day. Becket was represented on its brief by Stanford law professor and former Tenth Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Ryan Colby at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7219. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Moments ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, where a group of anti-religious atheists sued to tear down a World War I memorial in Maryland. During oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts raised the argument Becket had urged in its friend-of-the-court brief, suggesting that a historical approach offers a clear way for resolving disputes about religious symbols in the public square.

In October 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled against the Bladensburg Peace Cross memorial using the notorious Lemon test, a vague legal standard that requires courts to guess whether the government is trying to “endorse” religion whenever it mentions God or religion. In its brief to the Supreme Court, Becket urged it to abandon the Lemon test and uphold the cross based on the historical understanding of what constituted an “establishment” of religion at the time of the nation’s founding.

“The nation’s founders knew what an unconstitutional establishment of religion looked like, and a passive symbol like a memorial cross wasn’t it,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket. “The Supreme Court should drive a pencil through the monstrous Lemon test’s heart once and for all and recognize the important role of religious symbols in our nation’s history, culture, and in the public square.”

The Bladensburg memorial was designed by mothers who lost their sons in the World War I and was erected in 1925 on private land with funds raised by the American Legion, a military veterans association. The cross shape is an internationally recognized symbol of sacrifice and loss and a frequently used symbol to honor fallen soldiers. The American Humanist Association, an anti-religious activist group, is suing to take the memorial down.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which maintains the cross, is represented by Hogan Lovells. The American Legion is represented by Jones Day. Becket was represented on its brief by Stanford law professor and former Tenth Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision this summer.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Morris County, New Jersey, filed a petition Tuesday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to protect its historic preservation program after the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered a halt to participation by historic houses of worship. In FFRF v. Morris County Board of Freeholders, the Freedom From Religion Foundation—a Wisconsin-based militant atheist organization—sued the county for allowing historic houses of worship to apply for preservation funds on equal terms with all other historical sites. Grants are awarded under neutral criteria, and houses of worship can only use the grants to repair a historic building’s exterior and mechanical systems. But the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that giving neutral treatment to houses of worship constituted religious activity in violation of the New Jersey Constitution. Yesterday’s filing asks the Supreme Court to let Morris County continue treating all historic sites the same, without having to engage in religious discrimination.

In its 2017 Trinity Lutheran ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court protected a church’s right to participate in a generally available public program, stating that excluding the church because of its religious status would violate the First Amendment. But lower courts have been divided on how far that extends. Several courts, including the New Jersey Supreme Court, have ruled that historic preservation funding cannot be given to houses of worship, while several other courts have ruled that houses of worship cannot be excluded without violating the Constitution.

“Time does not discriminate,” said Diana Verm, legal counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm representing Morris County in its petition before the Supreme Court. “It takes its toll on all our historic structures, secular and religious alike. The county should not be forced to discriminate by favoring secular sites in its preservation efforts.”

The state of New Jersey has a long history of funding historic preservation for buildings, including churches. One of the state’s earliest grants was to the 1850 Solomon Wesley Church, an active house of worship originally built to serve a community of freed slaves.

“In Morris County, we want to preserve all of our historical sites, including our magnificent houses of worship, some of which date back to the 1700s and were designed by the leading architects of their time,” said Doug Cabana, the freeholder director of Morris County. “Preserving the character and beauty of our county is a critical element of the county’s cultural and economic success.

Last year Becket along with Thomas A. Gentile of Wison Elser in Florham Park, New Jersey filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending Morris County’s grant program and the Catholic, Baptist, Episcopal, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches whose buildings have been restored thanks to the program. Becket is now counsel for the county in this case.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The City of Pensacola, Florida, asked the U.S. Supreme Court late yesterday to protect a historic World War II-era memorial cross that has stood in a city park for over 75 years. In Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola, a federal appeals court ruled that the cross must come down, but two of the three judges who decided the case said the result was “wrong” and called the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence a “hot mess.” The appeal comes as the Supreme Court is considering a similar case involving the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a World War I memorial in Maryland. Pensacola has asked the Supreme Court to join the two cases together and decide if historic symbols like the cross are permitted in the public square.

A wooden cross was first placed in Pensacola’s Bayview Park in 1941 by the Jaycees, a local community service group, as the U.S. prepared to enter World War II. The cross has been a popular gathering place for over 75 years and is one of over 170 displays in Pensacola’s parks commemorating the city’s history and culture. In 2016, an atheist organization sued the city, claiming that the cross is “offensive” and establishes a government religion.

“Religious symbols aren’t like graffiti that the government has to erase as soon as someone complains,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, which is representing the city. “The Constitution lets the government recognize the important role of religion in our history and culture.”

The court of appeals based its ruling on the notorious “Lemon test” (see video), which has been criticized by scholars and Supreme Court justices as inconsistent with the historical meaning of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the court said the Lemon test hasn’t been “directly overruled,” so “our hands are tied.” Two of the three judges said the law should be fixed and the cross should remain.

“Pensacola is a diverse city that welcomes people of all faiths and none,” said Ashton Hayward, mayor of Pensacola. “The cross is a valuable part of our history; tearing it down would needlessly signal hostility toward religion. The city looks forward to a victory in the Supreme Court.”

Becket is representing the City of Pensacola free of charge together with Stanford Law Professor and former Tenth Circuit Judge Michael W. McConnell. The city is also represented by J. Nixon Daniel, III, and Terrie L. Didier of Beggs & Lane.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###   

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A historic World War II-era memorial cross in Pensacola, Florida, must come down, according to a federal appeals court that ruled in favor of an atheist activist group in Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola. But the court said it ruled that way only because it was bound by “flawed precedent” from thirty-five years ago that “needs to be reversed.” The city says it will appeal.

In 2016, the American Humanist Association sued the city on behalf of four individuals who said the cross was offensive. Last year, a federal judge ruled that the cross violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and must be torn down. The ruling relied on a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit in 1983, called ACLU v. Rabun County, which also struck down a cross. The Eleventh Circuit today stated that it was “bound” by Rabun to rule against the cross, but two of the three judges said Rabun was “wrong” and “needs to be reversed.” They urged the full Eleventh Circuit “to rehear this case” to “correct the errors that Rabun perpetuates” and uphold the cross.

“The Constitution doesn’t require the government to scrub every religious symbol from the public square,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, which is representing the city. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the government can recognize religion as a fundamental part of our history and culture, and we’re glad that the majority of the court agreed that the cross is constitutional.”

A wooden cross was first placed in Pensacola’s Bayview Park in 1941 by the local chapter of the Junior Chamber of Commerce (Jaycees)—a private, civic, nonprofit organization—as the United States prepared to enter World War II. For decades, the Jaycees and other groups have hosted community events at the memorial, including Veteran’s Day and Memorial Day remembrances. Today it continues to serve as a gathering place for both religious and nonreligious groups within the Pensacola community and as a significant symbol of the city’s history. The cross is one of over 170 displays in Pensacola parks reflecting different aspects of the city’s unique history and culture.

“This cross is more than a religious symbol,” said Ashton Hayward, mayor of Pensacola. “It’s an important part of our city’s history and culture – just like many other monuments celebrated throughout Pensacola’s parks. To tear down this symbol just because a few are offended by it shows hostility to religion, not neutrality. The city looks forward to being vindicated on appeal—as the majority of the court said it should be.”

The city has 14 days to ask for rehearing by the Eleventh Circuit or 90 days to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Supreme Court is also considering whether to review a challenge to the Bladensburg Cross, a World War I memorial in Maryland. Becket, which is representing the City of Pensacola free of charge, recently filed a brief in that case. Pensacola is also represented by J. Nixon Daniel, III, and Terrie L. Didier of Beggs & Lane.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Lehigh County, Pennsylvania defended its historic seal in court today from a militant atheist lawsuit suing to scrub the seal of a religious symbol representing one aspect of the county’s rich history. In FFRF v. Lehigh County, the Wisconsin-based atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation sued Lehigh County, demanding the county remove the image of a cross from the seal on the theory that it establishes Christianity as the official religion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit must decide whether the law requires stripping all religious symbols from the public square or, instead, protect them as a legitimate part of our country’s history and culture. (Watch Twitter Live statement here.)

The seal, which has been in use for over 70 years without complaint, features a cross, representing the county’s early German settlers who fled persecution in their homeland for religious freedom in America. The seal also features over a dozen other images – such as cement silos, textiles, a farm, the Liberty Bell, and a red heart – representing important aspects of the county’s rich history and culture. Becket represents Lehigh County before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the Constitution allows religious symbols in the public square in recognition of the importance of religion in our history and culture.

“FFRF is like the wicked witch of the west: A drop of religion and they scream ‘I’m melting!’” said Eric Baxter, VP & senior counsel at Becket, which is representing Lehigh County. “But flags with historically-significant religious images are part of American culture: New Mexico’s flag has the sacred sun symbol of the Zia Native American tribe, Louisiana’s has a Catholic symbol of a pelican with a bleeding heart to feed its hatchlings the Eucharist, and Utah’s has multiple images that recall the Mormon pioneers.”

Images of historic significance are common on the seals and flags of states, counties, and towns across America. Yet in 2016, FFRF sued Lehigh County, trying to censor the cross from the seal. In September 2017, a federal judge ruled in FFRF’s favor. Instead of applying the actual text and original meaning of the First Amendment, the judge felt bound by an old Supreme Court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which requires courts to guess whether the government is trying to “endorse” religion whenever it mentions God or religion (What is the Lemon Test? Watch this short video.)

But the Supreme Court has moved away from the Lemon test, ruling that religious symbols in government and in the public square that were acceptable at our nation’s founding are still acceptable today and that recognizing the role of religion in our nation’s history and culture does not violate the Constitution. Becket has also defended a World War II religious memorial in a Montana ski resort, a historic Pensacola park cross monument, and a 9/11 Ground Zero cross artifact, among others.

“There is nothing unconstitutional about using our flags and seals to accurately reflect history and culture—even if it happens to be religious,” said Baxter.

A decision is expected by early next year.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A federal appeals court protected religion in the public square today, rejecting an attempt to strip the national motto “In God We Trust” from U.S. coins and bills. New Doe Child # 1 v. The Congress of the United States is atheist activist Dr. Michael Newdow’s most recent loss in a string of cases trying to remove any mention of God in government. Crucial to the Eighth Circuit’s decision was its adoption of Becket’s argument that under a 2014 Supreme Court case, all Establishment Clause rulings must now align with U.S. history on religion in the public square. Becket uniquely raised this argument in a friend-of-the-court brief, after the federal government failed to do so.

The court found that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway “offered an unequivocal directive: ‘[T]he Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings.” The court recognized that Galloway was “‘a major doctrinal shift’ in Establishment Clause jurisprudence,” one that overrules past case law that would threaten “Government acknowledgments of religions,” such as the National Motto. Previous cases had abandoned objective historical analysis for free-floating judicial tests that led to absurd results.

“The good news is you no longer need to be afraid that the pennies in your pocket are gateway drugs to theocracy,” said Diana Verm, counsel at Becket. “The Court was right to say that the First Amendment does not ban ‘In God We Trust.’ For too long, the country has been stuck in what Justice Gorsuch once described as ‘Establishment Clause purgatory.’ The court’s decision today is a huge step towards setting things right.”

Newdow’s lawsuits have long been fueled by the Lemon test, a notorious legal test that ignores what the Founders considered to be an establishment of religion and invites anti-religious activists to file lawsuits against anything that looks vaguely religious. Lemon has been much reviled by justices, judges, and legal experts for its incoherence and invited hostility toward religion. The Supreme Court’s landmark Galloway decision implicitly rejected Lemon and replaced it with an objective evaluation of our nation’s history.

Yet lower courts have still been using the Lemon test, allowing Newdow to claim that the national motto, which has appeared on U.S. currency since 1864, violates his rights as an atheist. Conspicuously absent from the court’s opinion today was any discussion of Lemon, and the court noted that it was breaking with other federal appeals courts to follow Galloway’s “unequivocal directive.”

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

###

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The city of Pensacola, Florida, was in court today defending a historic World War II-era landmark from an atheist group suing to tear it down. In Kondrat’yev, et al v. City of Pensacola, the city of Pensacola, represented by Becket, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to preserve a 77-year old cross located in a public park after a lower court ordered its removal.

The cross was placed in Pensacola’s 28-acre Bayview Park in 1941 by a local community service group as the U.S. prepared to enter World War II. For decades, the cross has been the site of numerous community events, including Veterans Day and Memorial Day services, and is one of over 170 other displays in Pensacola’s parks. Together, these displays tell the story of the city’s rich history and culture.

“Religious symbols aren’t like graffiti that the government should erase as soon as someone complains,” said Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm representing the city. “The Constitution allows the government to recognize the significant role of religion in our nation’s history and culture.”

In 2016, the American Humanist Association sued the city on behalf of four individuals who said the cross was offensive. Two of those people live in Canada; the third lives outside the city; and the fourth has used the cross for his own “satanic purposes.” Last year, a federal judge ruled that the cross violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and must be torn down. However, the ruling relied on the notorious Lemon test, which the Supreme Court has rejected as inconsistent with the historical meaning of the Constitution.

The city has received a groundswell of support from fourteen states, five major Jewish groups, and an association of attorneys representing cities across the country. The broad coalition of religious and secular groups filed several friend-of-the-court briefs urging the court to protect the 77-year-old landmark from being torn down.

“Pensacola is proud of the pivotal role it has played in American history – and we should be free to celebrate that history,” said Ashton Hayward, mayor of Pensacola. “The cross was erected by local Pensacolans who wanted to come together on the eve of World War II, and it continues to serve as a reminder of our city’s rich history and culture.”

A decision is expected by the court in late summer.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish.

### 

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The city of Pensacola, Florida, will be in court today defending a historic cross in a city park from an atheist lawsuit demanding the cross be torn down. In Kondrat’yev, et al v. City of Pensacola, the city of Pensacola is appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to protect the 77-year-old cross, which was placed in the city’s Bayview Park in 1941 by a local community service group as the U.S. prepared to enter World War II.

For decades, the cross has been the site of numerous community events, including Veterans Day and Memorial Day services, and today it stands as a symbol of the city’s history and culture along with over 170 other displays in Pensacola’s parks. But in 2016, the American Humanist Association sued the city of Pensacola on behalf of four people – two of whom reside in Canada – who said the cross was “offensive.” Last year a lower court recognized that the Founding Fathers would have “found this lawsuit absurd,” but still ruled that the cross must be torn down. The city, represented by Becket, appealed, arguing that the Constitution does not require the government to strip every religious symbol from the public square (watch this short video to find out why).

What:
Oral Argument in Kondrat’yev, et al v. City of Pensacola

Who:
Luke Goodrich, vice president and senior counsel at Becket
Ashton Hayward, Pensacola mayor

When:
Today, May 16, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. EST

Where:
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Courtroom 339
56 Forsyth St., N.W., Atlanta, Ga., 30303

Becket attorney and Pensacola mayor will provide statements and be available for comment after the hearing.

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, asked a federal court late yesterday to protect its county seal from a threatened whitewashing for having a religious image on it. In Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) v. Lehigh County, the militant atheists at FFRF are asking the court to strip the image of a cross from among a dozen other images all representing aspects of the County’s history and culture. The cross was included to honor the County’s early German settlers who fled persecution in their homeland for religious freedom in America. The County, represented by Becket, argues that it is not illegal to recognize history, including its religious aspects.  

In the early 1940s, Lehigh County adopted a seal to reflect its rich history, economy, and culture. The seal includes symbols important to the county and its history: cement silos, a bison head, a red heart, an oil lamp and books, the Liberty Bell, and the cross, among others. The seal has existed for over 70 years without controversy. But now, FFRF is suing to scrub the cross from the seal, claiming that it establishes Christianity as an official county religion. 

“Every symbol on the County seal represents a unique piece of its history,” said Joe Davis, counsel at Becket, which is representing Lehigh County. “Acknowledging the beliefs and values of the County’s early settlers’ respects and honors the County’s heritage and culture—it does not establish a religion.” 

Images of historic significance are common on the seals and flags of states, counties, and towns across America. New Mexico’s flag has a single image: the sacred sun symbol of the Zia Native American tribe. Louisiana’s flag has a symbol of a pelican with a bleeding heart that feeds its hatchlings, a symbol long used to illustrate how Christians are nourished by the Eucharist and reflecting the early French Catholic influence in the Louisiana Territory. Utah’s flag and seal have images recalling the Mormon pioneers. And multiple seals and flags in the American southwest have images of friars and mission churches reflecting the early influence of Spanish Catholics in that region.   

Yet in 2016, FFRF sued Lehigh County, trying to censor the cross from the seal. In September 2017, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in FFRF’s favor. Yesterday Lehigh County, represented by Becket, appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, asserting that religion is part of the rich cultural fabric of our country and that the Constitution does not require the government to strip every religious symbol from the public square.   

“Religion is not something to be erased or ignored. It’s an integral part of the human experience,” said Davis. “Another unnecessary lawsuit in a long list of unnecessary lawsuits from FFRF shouldn’t lead to censoring religion from the public square.”  

Becket has defended religious symbols in the public square in several cases, including FFRF v. Weber, Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola, and the Ground Zero Cross.  

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. 

### 

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions and has a 100% win-rate before the United States Supreme Court. For over 20 years, it has successfully defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more here). 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Fourteen states, five major Jewish groups, municipal workers, and a community service organization led a groundswell of support for a historic cross under attack in Pensacola, Florida. The broad coalition of religious and secular groups are urging the federal appeals court in Kondrat’yev, et al v. City of Pensacola to protect the 76-year-old landmark from being torn down. 

The cross was placed in Pensacola’s 28-acre Bayview Park in 1941 by a local community service group as the U.S. prepared to enter World War II. For decades, community events have been held at the cross, including Veterans Day and Memorial Day services. The cross is now one of more than 170 displays in Pensacola’s many parks and serves as a symbol of the city’s history and culture. But in June a federal judge ordered that the cross must be torn down. The city has now appealed.   

“Pensacola has played a pivotal role in American history, and it should be able to celebrate its history,” said Pensacola Mayor Ashton Hayward. “We’re grateful for this strong show of support from around the country.”

Lawsuits like this one, based on offense at religious symbols “encourage the erasure of minority religions from public life,” said the friend-of-the-court brief of five Jewish groups. 

“The district court’s reasoning would threaten countless monuments,” like “veterans’ memorials that contain religious imagery including crosses, citations to scripture, and the like,” said the friend-of-the-court brief of fourteen states. 

The cross stood for almost 75 years without complaint. But in 2016, the American Humanist Association sued the city of Pensacola on behalf of four people who said the cross was “offensive.”  

“The public square can and should reflect the important role that religion plays in our history and culture,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket, which is defending the City of Pensacola. “We don’t have to censor our history and culture just because part of it is religious.”  

The fourteen states and five Jewish organizations were joined by JCI Florida, a community service group and successor to the organization that originally donated the cross, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association, which speaks out on issues of interest to cities around the country. Becket is representing the City of Pensacola and Mayor Ashton Hayward.    

For more information or to arrange an interview with a Becket attorney, please contact Melinda Skea at media@becketlaw.org or 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. 

### 

Becket is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions. For over 20 years, it has defended clients of all faiths, including Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Native Americans, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians (read more).