JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

The Attorney General of Texas 

December 1, 1978 

Honorable Mike Westergren 

County Attorney 

Nueces County Courthouse 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78461 

Opinion No. Ii- 1267 

Re: Whether a religious statue 

can be erected on city property 

in Corpus Christi. 

Dear Mr. Westergren: 

YOU have asked our opinion On the fOUOwing question: 

[Is it] constitutionally permissible for the City of 

Corpus Christi to allow use of a public area in the bay 

front for the erection of a statue of Christ at no 

expense to the city either for installation or majntenance in commemoration of the discovery of Corpus 

Christi Bay by dePineda in year 1519 without violating 

either the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution or article I, sections 6 and 7 of the Texas 

Constitution regarding freedom of worship and 

appropriations for sectarian purposes? 

you inform us that a group of private citizens approached the city 

council and tendered the gift of an 16-foot bronze statue of Christ to 

commemorate the naming of Corpus Christi Bay. The original proposal was 

to present the sculpture to the city at no cost if the city would provide a site, 

a twelve-foot base and maintenance. Substantial controversy and public 

discussion concerning the separation of church and state ensued, and the 

proposal was amended. The Prospective donors indicated that they would 

form a nonprofit corporation to provide funds for the statue’s instatlation, 

base and maintenance and would lease or purchase the site from the city for 

the statue’s location. Under this proposal the city would have no connection 

with the statue other than selling or leasing Iand which would be used for the 

statue. Apparently, the only appropriate sites for the statue are now owned 

by the city. 

Most questions of this sort require a determination of whether a secular 

purpose is served by installation and maintenance of the statue. See AUen v. 

Morton, 495 F.2d 65 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (government participation inxgeant of 

p. 5016 
Honorable Mike Westergren - Page 2 (R-1267) 

Peace in a public park in Washington at which a creche was a part is not necessarily 

unconstitutional); State ex rel. Singelmann v. Morrison, 57 So.2d 238 (Le. Ct. App. 

1952) (statue of a Roman Catholic saint on public property upheld): Meyer v. 

Oklahoma Cit 

+ 

496 P.2d 769 (Okla.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 980 (1972) (50-foot high 

cross at angrounds did not violate Oklahoma Constitution because of the secular 

environment in which it was erected); Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. City of 

Eugene, 558 P.2d 338 (Ore. 1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 876 (1977) (50-foot cross on 

city prcperty served a secular purpose since it was dedicated and maintained as a 

war memorial); Lowe v. City of Eugene, 463 P.2d 360 (Ore. 1969), cert. denied, 397 

U.S. 1042 (1970) (prior to passage of city charter provision designating cross es a 

war memorial, the cross was found to be a religious symbol which could not be 

maintained by the city); Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp., 475 F.2d 29 (10th Cir.). 

cert. denied, 414 U.S. 879 (1973) (erection of a monolith containing the Ten 

Commandments near the entrance of the citv/countv _~ courthouse found to be 

. 

constitutional). 

In this instance, however, there is to be no expenditure of public funds or 

public sponsorship. The extent of the city’s involvement will be to sell or lease a 

parcel of land to a private corporation. After purchasing the land, the corporation 

will erect and maintain the statue. Assuming that all relevant statutes concerning 

the disposition of land are observed, there is no constitutional problem in selling or 

leasing public property to an individual even if he later uses the land for religious 

purposes. 1 Antieau, Modern Constitutional Law, g 4.13 (1969). See Fenske v. 

Coddington, 57 So.2d 452 (Fla. 1952) (the gift to the state of an industxl school did 

not pose an establishment of a religion problem when the donor retained ownership 

of a chaoel located in one of the school buildinas and maintained the chapel 

privately); cf. Paul v. Dade County, 202 So.2d 833 @la. Dist. Ct. App. 1967), cert. 

denied, 39Ou.S. 1041(1968) (a temporary string of lights in the shape of a cross put 

on the side of a countv courthouse at no oublic exbense to encourage Christmas 

shopping did not amount to an establishment of religion). We ceut~n, however, 

that no specific lease has been presented to us, end we do not pass on whether a 

particular lease might not present entanglement problems. See generally Lemon v. 

Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971); Levitt v. Committee for Public Education end 

Religious Liberty, 413 U.S. 472 (1973). 

Accordingly, under the facts as you have presented them, i&, that the city 

will sell or lease land to a private individual or corporation which will subsequently 

erect a religious statue, there is no violation of the constitutional guarantees 

against establishment of religion. 

SUMMARY 

A city may sell or lease land to an individual even though 

the individual may subsequently intend to use the land for 

religious purposes. 

p. 5017 
, 

* 

I Honorable Mike Westergren - Page 3 (H-1267) 

APPROVED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

Opinion Committee 

p. 5018