Early next month the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the ?Mojave Cross? (Salazar v Buono) that has been standing in a remote area of the 1.6 million acre Mojave Desert Preserve since 1934. The cross was erected by a group of World War I veterans in memory of fallen soldiers of WWI. For 50 years, John Riley Bembry, a World War I medic, cared for the cross. When Bembry died in 1984, Henry Sandoz. and his wife, Wanda, resumed its care and have done so until today.
The Court battle over this cross has been going on since 1999 and has been the subject of several pieces of legislation. The cross stood unchallenged for the first 65 years of its existence.
In 2001, Frank Buono, a former National Park Service employee filed a suit claiming an ?Establishment Clause? violation. Technically speaking, at issue are two questions: 1. whether an individual has Article III standing to bring an Establishment Clause suit challenging the display of a religious symbol on government land and 2. if the Act of Congress directing the land be transferred to a private entity is a permissible accommodation.
In 2002, the District Court held that Buono ?has standing because he was ?subjected to an unwelcome religious display, namely the cross? and ordered the cross to be removed.
With the help of their Congressman in 2002, the Sandoz?s were able to trade five acres of their land within the Preserve for one acre where the cross stands. The land was transferred to VFW Post 385E pursuant to a Congressional designation.
?This has been going on for over ten years now,? Wanda Sandoz said, ?The cross was covered in 2002 or 2003. Originally it had a canvas bag over it but that was too easy to get off. We were accused of removing it, but we didn?t have to because others removed it.?
In September 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Courts judgment ... reasoning ?that Buono had suffered a ?concrete, personalized injury? rather than ?an abstract generalized grievance,? because he ?will tend to avoid Sunrise Rock on his visits to the Preserve as long as the cross remains standing.?
The Court of Appeals further invalidated the land transfer and ordered the Government to comply with the original injunction.
Later that year, the court refused to hear the case again.
Peter Eliasberg, Counsel of Record, ACLU of Southern California, represents the Sandoz couple, ?My client lives in Arizona. There is no argument that my client doesn?t have standing because he doesn?t live in the Preserve. He regularly visits the Preserve.
?He is offended by the fact that the government has engaged in this sectarian religious endorsement.
?He has a very large hand in the Preserve actually becoming a Preserve. He was a park ranger there so his connection to the area is as great or greater than anybody who lives there. And the fact the court has regularly said that people have standing to bring environmental challenges with respect to national parks or preserves whether they live there or not.?
Eliasberg continued, ?The cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity and that symbol has no religious meaning to any other religion other than Christianity. To call it a war memorial does not change the fact that it is the symbol of Christianity and to tell the family members of the 250,000 Jews who fought for the United States in World War I that they are being honored by a symbol that says ?Christ is the Messiah? is really offensive to them.?
In a February Press Release, Chief Legal Counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, Kelly Shackleford?s amicus brief of November 2008 asked for certiorari on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), The American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH), Veterans of Foreign Wars. Department of California, and American Ex-Prisoners of War (AXPOW).
?The VFW erected the memorial and originally owned the land on which the memorial sits, and had donated it to the government in 1934. The ACLU sued for removal of the veterans? memorial on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and ordered the memorial and cross dismantled.?
The cross still stands covered by a wooden box.
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on the case.
Facebook
Twitter