ACLU Renews Attack on Judge DeWeese
The ACLU of Ohio has renewed its attack on Judge James DeWeese. Judge DeWeese is a state court judge in Richland County, Ohio, who was sued by the ACLU in 2001 after he hung up in his courtroom two posters--the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments. We defended Judge DeWeese in that case. The U.S. District Court held that Judge DeWeese's display violated the Establishment Clause and ordered him "immediately to remove the poster of the Ten Commandments from his courtroom." Judge DeWeese complied with that order and removed the poster. The District Court's decision was affirmed by a divided court of appeals.
In 2006, following the Supreme Court's decisions in the McCreary County and Van Orden cases which provided some guidance for permissible government displays of the Decalogue, Judge DeWeese created and posted an entirely new display in his courtroom. The new display is titled "Philosophies of Law in Conflict" and contrasts the Ten Commandments with seven "Humanist Precepts" drawn from sources like the Humanist Manifesto II. The display also contains a discussion of DeWeese's legal philosophy and the contrast between legal systems based on recognition of moral absolutes and those based on moral relativism. In the display, the Ten Commandments and the Humanist Precepts are in identical fonts and type size.
On May 29, 2008, the ACLU of Ohio filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant [DeWeese] Should Not be Held in Contempt. The ACLU claims that by posting his new display, DeWeese violated the District Court's 2002 Order to remove the poster that was the subject matter of that lawsuit. Parties found guilty of contempt can face steep fines and, in extreme cases, imprisonment. We are preparing our defense of the judge against this baseless allegation. The law is clearly on the side of Judge DeWeese here.
In the McCreary County case, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that a government actor's past actions regarding such displays do not "forever taint any efforts on their part to deal with the subject matter." In addition, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Ohio is in the 6th Circuit), in the case of Adland v. Russ, stated that a government defendant who is found to have violated the Establishment Clause the first time it attempts to display the Ten Commandments is permitted to try to "fix" its display (by adding historical/secular context, for example) even using the same object that was part of the original, enjoined display. By filing its contempt motion against Judge DeWeese, the ACLU is completely ignoring these critical legal principles established in cases in which the ACLU itself was a party.
We are confident that Judge DeWeese will be vindicated in this matter.