DLR Online Special Features

Please visit here for a list of special feature editions of the DLR Online.


Events & Announcements

Mar. 10, 2019 - The Denver Law Review will soon be accepting submissions for the 2019 Emerging Scholar Award. For details on the award including eligibility, award information, and submission instructions, please review this document. We look forward to reviewing all submissions!


Jan. 9, 2019 - The Denver Law Review is pleased to open registration for our 2019 Symposium, Driven by Data: Empirical Studies in Civil Litigation and Health Law. We have a top-class list of speakers for this year's symposium and we look forward to seeing you there! Register by following this link.


Apr. 4, 2018 - The Denver Law Review is currently accepting submissions for its Recent Developments in the Tenth Circuit issue. For details on the issue and submission instructions, please review this document. We look forward to reviewing all submissions!


Subscriptions and Submissions

For information on how to subscribe to the Denver Law Review, please click here.

For the guidelines on how to submit an article to the Denver Law Review, please click here.

« United States v. Engstrom | Main | The Mighty Python of Employment Agreements Tightens Its Squeeze »
Thursday
Jan212010

Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces

By Joshua Vogel

The Establishment Clause was once again tested in the context of the display of a religious symbol in federal court.  In Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, Paul Weinbaum and Martin Boyd, both citizens of the City of Las Cruces (“the City”), alleged violations of their Constitutional rights under the Establishment Clause because the City displays an image of three crosses on city vehicles, in the public school, and on other city-owned property.

Plaintiffs allege that the display of the City seal containing the image of three crosses is an endorsement of Christianity and therefore illegal under the Establishment Clause.  The Tenth Circuit upheld the trial court’s holding that the display of crosses was not a violation of the Establishment Clause.  The Tenth Circuit used Justice O’Connor’s endorsement test and reasoned that because an objective observer who knows the history and context of the City’s name and foundation – the English equivalent of the city’s name is “the crosses” and the city was named, in part, because of a field of graves marked by crosses or for its function as a crossroads – would not believe that the purpose or the effect of the display was to endorse Christianity, no violation existed.

The Tenth Circuit stated that it was bound by the Lemon test, because it has yet to be overturned, but applied what it called a hybrid of the Lemon test and O’Connor’s endorsement test, which was essentially a strict application of O’Connor’s endorsement test.  O’Connor’s endorsement test focuses on whether an objective person, with full knowledge of the history and context of a religious display, would believe that the governmental entity is in fact endorsing a religion, or that the government action has the effect of endorsing a religion.

In order to determine if the governmental entity is endorsing a religion, the Tenth Circuit first looked at whether an objective observer would believe that the intent of the City was to endorse Christianity.  The Tenth Circuit found that as long as the government’s secular justification for the display is not a “sham” or “secondary” to a religious purpose, it will defer to that professed purpose.  In addition, it held that it would not attribute unconstitutional motives to the government, especially where the court can discern a “plausible secular purpose.”  The court held that the identification of government property is a plausible secular purpose in this case.

Second, the Tenth Circuit determined whether an objective observer would believe that the effect of the City seal was an endorsement of Christianity.  Once again, the court determined that an objector observer is one who takes account of the context and history of the display.  The court found that the use of crosses in the city symbol is intuitive given the history of the City being named after a group of crosses; the unique history works against the argument that the effect of the display is an endorsement of Christianity.  Given this unique history, an objective observer who is aware of that history would not believe that the effect of the display of crosses is an endorsement of Christianity.

Plaintiffs now have the opportunity to appeal the Tenth Circuit’s decision to the United States Supreme Court.  The Establishment Clause is currently a hot topic given the Court’s upcoming decision in the case involving the display of a cross honoring veterans in the Mojave Desert Preserve, which is owned by the federal government.

 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Member Account Required
You must have a member account on this website in order to post comments. Log in to your account to enable posting.