Content area
Full text
American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan, 616 F3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2010). Privately-funded, twelve-foot high Roman crosses erected on public land as memorials to honor fallen state highway patrol troopers by the state highway department association with permission from the state have the impermissible effect of conveying a message to a reasonable observer that the state prefers or otherwise endorses Christianity, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the federal constitution. Plaintiffs are American Atheists, Inc., a Texas non-profit corporation, and the three individual members of American Atheists and residents of Utah. The defendants are several state employees and the Utah Highway Patrol Association ("UHPA"), a non-profit organization that initiated and funds the memorial project and supports Utah Highway Patrol officers and families. The state employees authorized the incorporation of the Utah Highway Patrol logo on the crosses and the placement of the crosses on state land. American Atheists alleged the crosses violated the Establishment Clause of the federal constitution and Article 1 of the Utah constitution. The UHPA argued that 1) the crosses were the UHPAs private speech and therefore the Free Speech Clause, not the Establishment Clause, should govern the analysis, 2) the cross displays were intended as memorials, and roadside memorials often used crosses and were not seen as religious symbols in that context, 3) the designers and producers of the displays do not revere the cross as a symbol of their faith, and 4) Christians who revere the cross are a minority in Utah. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that the crosses violated the Establishment Clause. In reaching its decision the court first decided that even though the memorials are privately funded, the crosses are permanent monuments erected on public land and therefore must be analyzed as government speech and not private speech. The court next applied the Lemon test to analyze whether Utah violated the principles protected by the Establishment Clause. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). The court looked at whether 1) the state had a secular legislative purpose, 2) its principal or primary effect was one that neither advanced nor inhibited religion, and 3) the statute did not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. Under the "purpose prong" of Lemon, the court determined that American Atheists failed to establish that the government acted with the impermissible motive of endorsing or favoring religion. The court found the government shared the same motive as the UHPA, which was the secular purpose and intent of honoring fallen Utah Highway Patrol troopers to promote safety on highways. Although the State did not have an impermissible purpose or motive, the court found that the crosses did violate the "effect prong" of the Lemon test. The effect prong asks whether, irrespective of the government's actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion. After reviewing the context and history of the Roman cross, along with the facts of the case, the court determined that the cross is not a generic or secular symbol but instead is a Christian symbol, and its common use on roadsides does not make it a common or secular symbol. The court also determined that just because the designers of the memorials and the majority of Utah residents do not revere the cross as a symbol of their faith does not mean that reasonable observers would not interpret the state's actions as endorsing Christianity. Because the crosses have the effect of representing the government's endorsement of Christianity, the memorials violate the Establishment Clause. (Erin Dunleavy)