ACLJ Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Constitutionality of Highways Cross Memorials

May 23, 2011

(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) today filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court of the United States to take a case in which an appeals court declared the placement of crosses along Utah highways unconstitutional. In its amicus brief, the ACLJ contends that the crosses, placed to commemorate the death of Utah Highway Patrol officers and urge motorists to drive safely, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"This is just another troubling example of the courts being used to remove symbols to honor those who have given their lives in service to others - in this case, Utah Highway Patrol officers," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "The mere existence of a religious symbol in a public place need not trigger a constitutional crisis.  The Supreme Court recently noted that the Constitution does not prohibit, but rather accommodates such symbols. We're hopeful the high court will take this case and reverse the appeals court decision, clearing the way for the highway crosses to remain in place."

In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that the placement of Latin crosses along Utah roadways violated the Establishment Clause.

The Utah Highway Patrol Association, a private, nonreligious organization, erected Latin crosses that conspicuously displayed, along with the Highway Patrol logo, the names, pictures, ranks, badge numbers, service information, and years of death of Utah Highway Patrol officers who died in the line of duty. The Association erected the crosses in locations safely accessible to the public that were as close as possible to the sites where the officers died. The crosses were intended to serve as memorials to the officers’ service and sacrifice and to remind drivers of the importance of driving safely.

In its brief backing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, the ACLJ contends the Utah crosses are constitutional and reflect what the high court decided just a year ago.

In April 2010, in the case of Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al., v. Buono, (08-472), the Supreme Court ruled that a World War I memorial in California’s Mojave Desert that features a memorial cross can remain in place.  A plurality opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy observed:  "A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society. . . . Rather, it leaves room to accommodate divergent values within a constitutionally permissible framework."

The ACLJ amicus brief in the Utah case, Davenport v. American Atheists (No. 10-1297), is posted here.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.