Today, the 勛圖眻畦 and 勛圖眻畦 of San Diego will argue before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the Mt. Soledad cross, a Latin cross that sits atop federal land in Southern California, violates the First Amendment prohibition against government-endorsed religion.
In July 2008, a federal judge ruled that the cross is constitutional after the federal government obtained the land the cross sits on through a special act of Congress. He rationalized this decision by saying that the primary effect of this prominent cross is "patriotic and nationalistic, not religious." Today's argument before the 9th Circuit is an appeal of that decision.
We will argue that the federal governments acquisition of the land in 2006 was nothing more than an effort to evade a long series of clear court decisions invalidating the city of San Diegos display of the 43-foot tall cross. (The first lawsuit against this particular cross was brought in 1989, on behalf of an atheist Vietnam War veteran.) Courts have routinely recognized that governmental displays of distinctly sectarian symbols, such as crosses, violate the First Amendment.
The 勛圖眻畦 has always defended the First Amendment rights of individuals to freely practice their religion, or no religion at all. But the government's display of the Soledad cross violates that same First Amendment right by privileging one set of beliefs over all others.
Or put it this way: A giant cross in front of a church or on your front lawn is fine, and we'd defend your constitutional right to these displays. But a giant cross on government land is not.
See the difference?
We hope the 9th Circuit does.
Learn More 勛圖眻畦 the Issues on This Page
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Free Speech
Religious Liberty
勛圖眻畦 Moves to Dismiss Lawsuit That Seeks to Punish Non-Profit Advocacy against Religious Activities in Oklahoma Schools
OKLAHOMA CITY Today, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against it by the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE). FFRF sent letters to public schools in Oklahoma objecting to religious activities, prompting State Superintendent Ryan Walters and the Oklahoma Department of Education to file a SLAPP suit seeking to punish its constitutionally protected speech. The states Department of Education has failed to identify any actual violation of law. We are proud of the work we are doing to protect the rights of conscience of public school children in Oklahoma, said Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. This frivolous lawsuit by Ryan Walters seeks to silence FFRF, and we are not going to allow that to happen. FFRF is represented by the 勛圖眻畦 and the 勛圖眻畦 of Oklahoma. This Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) seeks to chill the free speech and petition rights of FFRF. SLAPP suits are used to weaponize the legal system to punish and silence constitutionally protected speech. Advocacy organizations have the right to criticize government policy and push for change, said Megan Lambert, legal director of the 勛圖眻畦 of Oklahoma. This lawsuit is just another in a long line of political stunts by OSDE as it seeks to silence and punish dissent. We will vigorously defend FFRFs First Amendment rights against the Departments abuse of the legal process. Our client has not violated any law by speaking out against religious activities in Oklahoma public schools, said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 勛圖眻畦s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. This lawsuit has one goal: to chill our clients ability to petition the government. This is an abusive legal tactic intended to punish people and organizations for speaking out and fighting back against government policies. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The motion can be viewed online here.Court Case: Oklahoma State Department of Education v. Freedom From Religion FoundationAffiliate: Oklahoma -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Religious Liberty
勛圖眻畦 Urges Supreme Court to Reject Mandatory Opt-Outs from Maryland School Districts Inclusive English Language Arts Curriculum
WASHINGTON The 勛圖眻畦 and 勛圖眻畦 of Maryland filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today in Mahmoud v. Taylor, urging the court to reject a challenge to a Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) policy barring opt-outs from its inclusive English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum. Through childrens literature, the ELA curriculum acquaints students with a diversity of viewpoints and people in their community, including LGBTQ peers and their families. The brief argues that, because the no opt-out policy is religion-neutral and applies regardless of the reason for objection, the policy should not be analyzed under a strict scrutiny legal standard and should instead be subject to a more lenient rational basis review, which is easily satisfied in the case. Although MCPS previously allowed opt-outs for any reason from portions of the ELA curriculum featuring storybooks with LGBTQ characters and themes, the growing number of opt-outs proved be disruptive and divisive. Teachers were forced to divert time and resources to create alternative lessons for students who opted out, and many students simply did not attend school at all for the day. In addition, the opt-outs stigmatized LGBTQ students and those with LGBTQ family members. As a result, MCPS properly barred all ELA opt-outs, preventing further disruption to the classroom environment and the educational mission of the ELA curriculum. The decision prompted a group of parents to sue, asserting a violation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and other constitutional provisions. Religious liberty is fundamentally important, but it doesnt force public schools to exempt students from secular lessons that dont align with their families religious views, said Daniel Mach, director of the 勛圖眻畦s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. Mandating opt-outs would wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions, stoking divisiveness and disruption, and undermining a core purpose of public education to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society. In a time of ever-increasing polarization in our country, exemptions that would require schools to allow children to refuse exposure to materials and curriculum about people from various backgrounds is divisive and harmful, said Deborah Jeon, legal director for the 勛圖眻畦 of Maryland. Our education system should be one that embraces differences as an opportunity to foster understanding and bring people together. Anything else would send ripples of censorship across the country, negatively impacting countless communities and children who deserve a balanced education.Court Case: Mahmoud v. McKnightAffiliate: Maryland -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Religious Liberty
Oklahoma Faith Leaders, Education Advocates, and Parents Urge Supreme Court to Block Nations First Religious Public Charter School
WASHINGTON, D.C. A group of Oklahoma faith leaders, public education advocates, and public-school parents who are among the plaintiffs in a lawsuit to stop Oklahomas creation of the nations first religious public charter school today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to protect religious freedom and public education by affirming that charter schools are public schools that must be secular and open to all students. In an amicus brief filed today in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the group explained that the Oklahoma Supreme Court correctly ruled last year that Oklahomas charter schools are public schools and, as governmental entities, must abide by the U.S. Constitutions protections for religious freedom and church-state separation. Therefore, the proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which intends to indoctrinate students in one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school. The amici, which include OKPLAC (the Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition) and eight Oklahoman taxpayers, are plaintiffs in OKPLAC v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, a separate lawsuit in Oklahoma state court challenging the charter school boards approval of St. Isidores application to become a public school. That case is on hold while the case before the U.S. Supreme Court is being resolved. The plaintiffs in OKPLAC are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the 勛圖眻畦, Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation, with support from Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann. The organizations issued the following statement: The law is clear: Charter schools are public schools and must be secular and open to all students. The Oklahoma Supreme Court correctly found that the states approval of a religious public charter school was unlawful and unconstitutional. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that ruling and safeguard public education, church-state separation, and religious freedom for all. Oklahoma taxpayers, including our clients, should not be forced to fund a religious public school that plans to indoctrinate students into one religion and discriminate against students and staff. Converting public schools into Sunday schools would be a dangerous sea change for our democracy. In addition to OKPLAC, todays amicus brief was filed on behalf of Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Brenda Len矇, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke and Erika Wright. The team of attorneys that represents the amici is led by Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United and includes Luke Anderson of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the 勛圖眻畦; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Mason of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann. -
Press ReleaseMar 2025
Religious Liberty
Oklahoma Supreme Court blocks Superintendent Ryan Walters attempts to purchase Bibles and Bible-infused instructional materials
Oklahoma City In a victory for religious freedom, public education and church-state separation, the Oklahoma Supreme Court today temporarily blocked Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) from spending taxpayer dollars on Bibles and Bible-infused instructional materials. The order came in the lawsuit Rev. Lori Walke v. Ryan Walters, which was filed in October 2024 on behalf of 32 Oklahoma families, teachers and faith leaders. The plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the 勛圖眻畦, the 勛圖眻畦 of Oklahoma Foundation, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice. The Courts order temporarily stayed work on any new request by the OSDE for the purchase of Bibles. In addition, the order paused work on a request for proposals issued by OSDE on February 21, 2025. This request for proposals sought suppliers for supplemental instructional materials that effectively integrate the Bible and character education into elementary-level social studies curriculum. The organizations representing the plaintiffs will continue fighting Walters Bible-education mandate and additional filings are expected soon. They issued the following joint statement on the win: This victory is an important step toward protecting the religious freedom of every student and parent in Oklahoma. Superintendent Ryan Walters has been abusing his power and the court checked those abuses today. Our diverse coalition of families and clergy remains united against Walterss extremism and in favor of a core First Amendment principle: the separation of church and state.Affiliate: Oklahoma