American Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan
616 F.3d 1145
| 10th Cir. | 2010Background
- UHPA erected twelve-foot crosses on public and nearby private land to memorialize Utah Highway Patrol troopers who died in the line of duty.
- Crosses bear the trooper’s name, badge number, a beehive emblem, a biographical photo, and a plaque; location included near death sites and along roadways.
- State consent allowed crosses on public land; state officials stated they neither approved nor disapproved the markers in some locations.
- Plaintiffs (American Atheists and individual members) alleged the memorials violate the Establishment Clause; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding the crosses convey governmental endorsement of Christianity and thus violate the Establishment Clause; court remanded for judgment for plaintiffs.
- Dissenting opinions (by Judge Kelly and Judge Gorsuch) criticized the majority’s use of the reasonable observer and urged reconsideration en banc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of plaintiffs | Plaintiffs have direct, unwelcome contact with crosses causing injury. | Standing shown via direct contact; residency/concrete injury sufficient. | Plaintiffs have standing. |
| Cross memorials as government speech under Pleasant Grove | Cross memorials are not private speech; they are government speech requiring Establishment scrutiny. | Crosses remain private memorials; not government speech; Pleasant Grove does not apply. | Cross memorials constitute government speech. |
| Purpose prong of Lemon test | Purpose to endorse Christianity is evident via design and display. | Purpose is secular (honoring fallen troopers; safety); not to endorse religion. | No violation of the purpose prong; secular purpose shown. |
| Effect prong of Lemon/endorsement test | Display conveys government endorsement of Christianity to a reasonable observer. | Context and history neutralize religious endorsement; secular meanings exist. | Memorial crosses have impermissible effect of endorsing Christianity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (endorsement framework; context matters in evaluating displays)
- County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1989) (context and history determine display constitutionality)
- Green v. Haskell Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 568 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2009) (context, history, and Lemon framework application)
- Weinbaum v. City of Las Cruces, 541 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 2008) (multi-factor analysis of observer knowledge and context)
- O'Connor v. Washburn Univ., 416 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2005) (endorsement test within Lemon framework)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2009) (government speech doctrine; monument displays on public land)
- Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803 (S. Ct. 2010) (plurality on cross symbolism and context in establishment analysis)
- Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2004) (contextual secular meaning of religious displays on public land)
- Friedman v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Bernalillo County, 781 F.2d 777 (10th Cir. 1985) (fear of discrimination not required; contextual analysis example)