Court hears arguments about cross on park land
Lawyer Blogs
The Supreme Court appeared divided between conservatives and liberals Wednesday over whether a cross on federal park land in California violates the Constitution.
Several conservative justices seemed open to the Obama administration's argument that Congress' decision to transfer to private ownership the land on which the cross sits in the Mojave National Preserve should take care of any constitutional questions.
"Isn't that a sensible interpretation" of a court order prohibiting the cross' display on government property? Justice Samuel Alito asked.
The liberal justices, on the other hand, indicated that they agree with a federal appeals court that ruled that the land transfer was a sort of end run around the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the decisive vote in these cases, said nothing to tip his hand.
The tenor of the discussion suggested that the justices might resolve this case narrowly, rather than use it to make an important statement about their view of the separation of church and state.
The cross, on an outcrop known as Sunrise Rock, has been covered in plywood for the past several years following federal court rulings that it violates the First Amendment prohibition. Court papers describe the cross as being 5 feet to 8 feet tall.
A former National Park Service employee, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to have the cross removed or covered after the agency refused to allow erection of a Buddhist memorial nearby. Frank Buono describes himself as a practicing Catholic who has no objection to religious symbols, but he took issue with the government's decision to allow the display of only the Christian symbol.
Related listings
-
High court refuses to hear insider trading appeal
Lawyer Blogs 10/05/2009The Supreme Court has refused to hear former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio's appeal of his insider trading conviction.The court said Monday it would not entertain Nacchio's request that he either be acquitted of the charge or granted a new trial.Prosecuto...
-
Court won't force Ill. to have 'Choose Life' plate
Lawyer Blogs 10/05/2009The Supreme Court has refused to hear an anti-abortion's group request to force a state to issue "Choose Life" license plates.The high court on Monday left in place a federal appeals court ruling that state officials were within their rights in tryin...
-
Court to weigh lawsuit against former Somali PM
Lawyer Blogs 10/01/2009The Supreme Court will consider throwing out a human rights lawsuit against a former prime minister of Somalia who is accused of overseeing killings and other atrocities.The court said Wednesday it would review an appeals court ruling allowing Somali...
Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?
IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.
Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.
Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.