Supreme Court Briefs Filed
Today, focusing on constitutional law, we urged the Supreme Court of the
In our representation of the two Utah cities, we urged the high court to take the cases and overturn troubling lower court decisions that could force local governments across the country either to dismantle a host of monuments, memorials, and other displays including long-standing patriotic and historical displays or else let all comers install privately owned monuments or displays, regardless of content.
The Supreme Court is faced with a dramatic opportunity: preserve sound precedent involving the well-established distinction between government speech and private speech or permit a twisted interpretation of the Constitution to create havoc in cities and localities across
Today we filed reply briefs with the high court in two separate cases: a Reply to Brief in Opposition regarding its Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the cases of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (No. 07-665) and
In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit split 6-6 over a request for the full appeals court to rehear two cases involving demands that the
In our reply briefs filed with the high court, we contend that the appeals court got it wrong. The Constitution does not empower private parties to force permanent displays into a park, crowding out the available physical space and trumping the governments own vision for the parks decor or theme, the filing in the Pleasant Grove City case contends. The principal analytical flaw in the decision below was the Tenth Circuits holding reflecting a line of aberrant Tenth Circuit cases that a donated monument somehow remains private speech, rather than government speech, despite the governments ownership and control of the monument.
We also contend that the lower court decision badly distorts the Supreme Courts government speech and public forum doctrines. We also argue that the appeals court decision creates enormous practical problems, as now any federal, state, or local government body displaying a monument that once was donated (and there are many such instances) is a sitting target for litigation demanding the erection and display of a host of additional monuments in the name of equal access.
We have argued that unless the lower court decisions are overturned, cities and states will be forced to face a burdensome and unwarranted choice remove long-standing monuments or permit any group to display any monument in public places.
In the Duchesne case, even an attorney for Summum admitted to the federal district court that its position could lead to bizarre results. Summums attorney told the court that if a city park is required to display monuments contributed by all comers, the city park may well end up looking like a cemetery with many, many monuments.
With todays filings, the Supreme Court will now consider the two