958 F. Supp. 2d 1018
S.D. Ind.2013Background
- City approves cross-display on Riverfront in Evansville for four blocks, 31 six-foot crosses to remain Aug 4–18, 2013; display sponsored by private churches; opposition argues Establishment Clause violation.
- Works Board has final say on Riverfront permits, requires safety and legal approvals, and may remove crosses deemed inappropriate; plan includes a disclaimer but cross-size/scope may convey endorsement.
- Crosses will be unattended, decorated by participating churches, with no city funding or decorating involvement; potential signage removed to comply with “First Amendment signs.”
- District court conducted preliminary injunction hearing; West Side Christian Church is sole permittee and sought intervention; court granted intervention to church.
- Court ultimately holds the city’s approval creates impermissible government endorsement of religion and permanently enjoins the display.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the display violates the Establishment Clause. | Cabral/ Tarsitano argue endorsement through government display. | City contends broad public forum accommodation, no endorsement. | Yes; endorsement found; injunction entered. |
| Whether the Works Board’s discretion and post-approval removals create entanglement risk. | Board discretion could entangle government with religion. | Discretionary power limited to safety/decorative issues. | Entanglement concern acknowledged; court notes risk but focuses on endorsement. |
| Whether a temporary unattended religious display in a public forum may be allowed without violating the First Amendment. | Unattended display could be permissible as private speech in public forum. | Unattended display with broad scope constitutes government endorsement. | No; size/scope overwhelm forum, constituting endorsement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) (establishment and speech in school contexts; secular purposes sufficient)
- Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (endorsement analysis guiding display cases)
- Cnty. of Allegheny v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) (endorsement/neutrality framework for public displays)
- Pinette v. City of Oak Park, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) (concurring opinions shaping endorsement framework; control of public forum)
- Elmbrook School Dist. v. Doe, 687 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. en banc 2012) (modified Lemon analysis; government endorsement concerns in public forums)