Trunk, et al v. City of San Diego, et al

Filing 364

ORDER denying 353 Ex Parte Motion to Stay and Entering Judgment in Favor of Plaintiffs and Specifying Remedy. The Defendants are now PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from displaying or continuing to allow the display of the current cross on federal land as par t of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial. Within 90 days of the date of this order, Defendants are ORDERED to remove the cross. At Defendants' suggestion, and with Plaintiffs' consent, the order to remove the current cross is STAYED pending the resolution of any appeal. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 12/12/13. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

STEVE TRUNK,

CASE NO. 06cv1597-LAB (WMc)
(Consol. w/06cv1728-LAB (WMc)

12

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION TO STAY; AND

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Defendants.
________________________________
MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL
ASSOCIATION,
Real Parties in Interest.
________________________________
JEWISH WAR VETERANS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC.,
RICHARD A. SMITH, MINA SAGHEB,
and JUDITH M. COPELAND,
Plaintiffs,

24
25
26
27

ORDER ENTERING JUDGMENT
IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS AND
SPECIFYING REMEDY

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, CHARLES HAGEL,
Secretary of Defense and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,

vs.
CHARLES HAGEL, Secretary of
Defense, in his official capacity,
Defendant.

28
-1-

06cv1597

1

Procedural Background

2

This court previously held (and continues to believe) that permitting a historic, now

3

59 year-old cross to remain as part of a federal war memorial atop Mount Soledad cannot

4

be reasonably viewed as our government's attempt to establish or to promote religion. But

5

a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled otherwise. See Trunk v. City of San

6

Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011) (entirety of Mount Soledad Memorial "projects

7

a government endorsement of Christianity"). The panel held that the presence of the cross

8

within the Memorial sends a “message of endorsement and exclusion,"id., 629 F.3d at

9

1122–23, and although that message did not originate with the federal government, the

10

government adopted it as its own by permitting the cross to remain as part of a federal war

11

memorial. According to the Ninth Circuit, Congress and President G.W. Bush (who signed

12

the legislation converting the memorial to federal property) violated the Establishment Clause

13

by preserving the cross as part of the Memorial, and any effort to keep the cross in place

14

conveys a sectarian message with the same unconstitutional purpose. Id. at 1124.

15

The Ninth Circuit did not explicitly direct this court to order removal of the cross, but

16

instead questioned whether the Memorial might be modified in some way, and remanded

17

the case "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." Id. at 1125. Nonetheless,

18

other deliberate language in the opinion makes it clear that removal of the large, historic

19

cross is the only remedy that the Ninth Circuit conceives will cure the constitutional violation.

20

See, e.g. id. at 1101 (describing Mount Soledad as an "outlier among war memorials" and

21

characterizing the cross as "pivotal and imposing" and "towering" and "dwarfing by every

22

measure the secular plaques and other symbols" that are also part of the memorial); 1123

23

n.22 (describing the cross as “by far [the Memorial’s] most prominent and dominant feature,

24

completely eclipsing” other elements). In spite of many secular changes to the Memorial, its

25

long sectarian history, as found by the Ninth Circuit, effectively prevents the government

26

from purging the religious connotation in any other way. See id. at 1121 (“The fact that the

27

Memorial also commemorates the war dead and serves as a site for secular ceremonies

28

honoring veterans cannot overcome the effect of its decades-long religious history.”); 1122
-2-

06cv1597

1

(history of the cross, its use, and public opinion about it “cast a long shadow of sectarianism

2

over the Memorial that has not been overcome by the fact that it is also dedicated to fallen

3

soldiers, or by its comparatively short history of secular events”). This court is required to

4

follow the Ninth Circuit's edicts, however indirectly worded they may be.

5

Plaintiffs have also requested that the cross be removed, and no party has pointed

6

to a reasonable alternative. Some Defendants suggested the addition of signage offering

7

explanations of the memorial’s purpose. But the panel’s decision forecloses this as a

8

solution. Trunk, 629 F.3d at 1111–12 (citing Separation of Church & State Comm v. City of

9

Eugene, 93 F.3d 617, 619 (9th Cir. 1996) for the principle that a plaque dedicating a cross

10

as a war memorial could not cure the Establishment Clause violation). See also American

11

Atheists, Inc. v. Duncan, 616 F.3d 1145, 1161–62 (10th Cir. 2010) (explanatory information

12

attached to roadside cross memorials did not prevent them from violating the Establishment

13

Clause), amended on denial of reh’g en banc by American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637

14

F.3d 1095 (2010), and cert. denied by Utah Highway Patrol Ass’n v. American Atheists, Inc.,

15

132 S.Ct. 12 (2011).

16

Request for Stay

17

Defendants Charles Hagel and the United States cite to a pending bill before

18

Congress, S. 1197, that would authorize the government to transfer the Mount Soledad

19

Memorial to a private entity, thereby curing the constitutional violation the Ninth Circuit's

20

decision identified. See Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 706, 713–22 (2010). The proposed

21

stay would expire, these Defendants suggest, if the bill is rejected or if Congress adjourns

22

before acting on it. Plaintiffs do not oppose the stay, but amicus curiae Representative

23

Duncan Hunter filed a response expressing his opposition, and arguing that a stay would

24

merely have the effect of delaying entry of judgment. At argument, the Court was informed

25

that the transfer provision has since been deleted from S. 1197.

26

While it is possible that Congress might decide to transfer the Memorial, there is no

27

assurance of that nor any way to gauge the likelihood of such an action. If a transfer were

28

underway or were imminent, or there was otherwise a strong prospect of a transfer, the
-3-

06cv1597

1

question would be more difficult. But the mere possibility that Congress will act to transfer

2

the Mount Soledad Memorial to private interests is not a reason to delay this case further.

3

As the Ninth Circuit noted in its opinion, the presence of this cross on public property has

4

generated controversy for more than twenty years. Trunk, 629 F.3d at 1101.

5

Additionally, in his concurrence to the denial of certiorari in this case, Justice Alito

6

pointed out the absence of a final judgment prevented the Court from considering the

7

constitutionality of the Memorial, which is “a question of substantial importance.” Mt. Soledad

8

Mem’l Ass’n v. Trunk, 132 S.C.t 2535, 2535–36 (2012). It is particularly appropriate for the

9

Court to issue a decision that advances this case to finality so that this question of

10

“substantial importance” can be clarified, perhaps by the U.S. Supreme Court.

11
12

For all these reasons, this Court concludes that it's time for resolution; it's time for
finality. The motion to stay the judgment in this case is DENIED.

13

Conclusion and Order

14

As directed by the Ninth Circuit's decision, this court ENTERS SUMMARY

15

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS, and finds as follows: By continuing to permit the

16

current cross to be displayed as part of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial, both the

17

United States and Secretary Charles Hagel are violating the Establishment Clause of the

18

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, these Defendants are now

19

PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from displaying or continuing to allow the display of the current

20

cross on federal land as part of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial. Within 90 days of

21

the date of this order, Defendants are ORDERED to remove the cross. At Defendants’

22

suggestion, and with Plaintiffs’ consent, the order to remove the current cross is STAYED

23

pending the resolution of any appeal.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-4-

06cv1597

1

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

DATED: December 12, 2013

6
7

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

06cv1597