Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Franklin County
133 F. Supp. 3d 1154
S.D. Ind.2015Background
- FFRF and two Franklin County residents sued challenging the County’s annual Nativity display on the courthouse lawn as violating the Establishment Clause.
- FFRF withdrew an earlier request for a preliminary injunction, then filed an amended complaint seeking prospective relief and nominal damages.
- In response, the County enacted Ordinance 2015-02, creating a content- and viewpoint-neutral permit process, size limits, and prohibitions on government-sponsored displays.
- The County moved to dismiss as moot, arguing the ordinance ended the allegedly wrongful conduct; FFRF withdrew its request for injunctive relief but pressed a claim for nominal damages only.
- The sole legal question became whether a claim for nominal damages alone preserves Article III jurisdiction when the government has voluntarily ceased the challenged conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary change in policy moots claims for prospective relief | Ordinance may not make future displays constitutional; case-sensitive analysis; prospective relief still viable | Ordinance ends wrongful conduct; no live controversy for injunctive relief | Moot as to prospective relief; no redressable injury for injunctive relief |
| Whether a standalone claim for nominal damages preserves Article III jurisdiction | A nominal damages judgment still vindicates rights and deters violations, so it keeps the case live | Nominal damages are symbolic and cannot confer jurisdiction when the underlying dispute is otherwise moot | Nominal damages alone insufficient to maintain jurisdiction where only past, remedied wrongs are alleged |
| Whether there is evidence the County’s ordinance is a sham (reasonable expectation of recurrence) | Plaintiff suggested ordinance may affect displays but reserved right to sue over future displays | County points to changed policy and a granted permit to a nonreligious display as evidence of genuine change | Court found no reasonable expectation of recurrence; ordinance not a ruse |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice | N/A (FFRF sought to proceed on nominal damages only) | County sought dismissal of entire case | Amended Complaint dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (Establishment Clause analysis can be fact-sensitive)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard; plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; reasonable inference of liability)
- City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) (mootness and live controversy principles)
- County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (mootness doctrine)
- United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (standing and continuing interest)
- Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. City of Green Bay, 581 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (E.D. Wis. 2008) (nominal damages insufficient to prevent dismissal where alleged conduct was already ceased)
- Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff who proves constitutional violation entitled at minimum to nominal damages)