### FI LED U.S . COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT March 5, 2004 THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK [P UBLI SH] IN THE UNIT ED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VEN TH C IRCU IT

________________________ No. 03-15005 Non-A rgument Calendar

________________________ D. C. Docket N o. 93-00895-CV -T-N KE LL Y M CG IN LE Y, RIC HA RD C. D OR LE Y, DE BR A G ILE S, Plain tiffs-A ppe llants,
versus GO RM AN HO US TO N, Senior Associate Just ice of the Ala bam a Su prem e Co urt, HA RO LD SE E, Associate Justice of the Ala bam a Su prem e Co urt, CH AM P L YO NS , JR., Associate Justice of the Ala bam a Su prem e Co urt, JEA N W ILL IA M S B RO W N, Associate Just ice of the Ala bam a Su prem e Co urt, BE RN AR D H AR W OO D, Associate Justice of the Ala bam a Su prem e Co urt, et a l., De fend ants- Ap pellee s.2 ________________________ Appeal from the United States Distri ct Court for theMiddl e Dis tr ic t of

Alab ama

_________________________ (March 5, 2004) Before B IRCH , DU BIN A and GO DB OL D, Circuit Judg es. PER CUR IA M: This suit ari ses from the removal of a monument depicti ng the Ten Co mm and men ts fro m th e rotu nda of th e A labam a Sta te Jud icial B uildin g in Montgomery, Alabama. Appell ants brought sui t against t he Associate Jus tic es of the Alabam a Suprem e Court un der the Establishmen t Clause of the First Amendment to theUnited States Constitution, madebinding upon t he Stat es by t

he Fo urtee nth A men dm ent an d en forc ed th rou gh 4 2 U .S.C . §19 83 . T he ap pellan ts all eged that theappell ees had vi olat ed the Establi shment Cla use by orde ring t

he removal of the monument. The Un ited Stat es Distric t Court for the Middle Distri ct of Alabama granted appellees’ motion to dismiss, holding that as a matter of l aw the removal of the Ten Commandm ents monument did not constit ute an establi shment of religi on, therefore t he appellant s could not prove a set of f acts t hat would support t

he rel ief r equest ed. Appell ants now appea l, a lle ging fi rst, that the dist rict court e rred i n dismis sing t he case on the ground t

hat t he court was bound3

by Glassroth v. Moore , 229 F.Supp.2d 1290 ( M.D. Ala. 2002) and, second, that the removal of the T en Com mandm ents monu ment violated the Establishm ent Clause by f avoring“anont

hei st ic rel igi on/ faith” . Neithe r gr ound h as me ri t. We aff irm. We r ev i ew de novo a distr ict cou rt’s or der g rantin g a m otion to dis miss
. Lotierzo v. A Wom an’s World Medical Center, Inc. , 278 F.3 d 11 80, 1 182 (11 th Cir. 2 002 ). “A ll we ll-plea ded facts in plain tiff’s co mp laint an d all re ason able inferences drawn from those facts are ta ken as true.” Oladeinde v. Cit y of Birmingham , 963 F.2d 1481, 1485 (11th C ir. 1992). Thus, “ ’unsupported
con clusio ns o f law or o f mix ed fa ct and law hav e lon g be en re cog nized not to prevent a Rule 12(b)(6) dismiss al.’ ” Dalrymple v. Reno , 334 F.3 d 99 1, 99 6 (1 1th Cir. 2003) (quoti ng M arsh v. B utler C oun ty , 268 F.3d 1014, 1036 n.16 (11th C ir. 2001). As noted by the distri ct court, the Ten Comm andments monum ent has been thesubj ect

of s ign if ic ant publ ic atte nti on an d liti gation . Thi s co urt wil l a ssume that the re ader i s famil iar wit h that hist ory, a s set

forth in Glassroth v. Moore , 229 F.S upp .2d 1 290 (M .D. A la. 20 02) , aff’d , Glassroth v. Moore , 335 F.3 d 12 82 ( 11th Cir. 2 003 ), recallof mandate denied , In re Roy Mo ore , 124 S.Ct. 30, 2003 WL 219 780 95 ( Au g. 20 , 200 3); Glassroth v. Moore , 275 F.Supp.2d 1347 (M.D. A la. 2003); and Glassroth v. Moore , 27 8 F. Sup p. 2d12 72 (M. D. Al a. 20 03 ). Thu s we4

will only bri efly rec ount it here. On July 31, 2001, Chief Justice Moore of the Alabama Supreme Co urt inst all ed in t

he publi c rotunda

of the Ala

bama Stat e Judic ialBuildi ng a 5,280- pound monument depic ting t he Ten Commandments. Thre e attorneys who pract ice l aw in Alabama cour ts brought

suit agains t Moore cla iming t hat t he
mo num ent co nstitu ted an imp erm issible estab lishm ent o f relig ion. The dist rict court he ld that theChief Jus tic e’s a cti on violated t he First and Fo urtee nth A men dm ents. Glassroth v. Moore , 229 F.Supp.2d 1290 (M.D. A la. 200 2). T his co urt affirm ed. Glassroth v. Moore , 335 F.3 d 12 82 ( 11th Cir. 2 003 ). In accor dance wit

h our deci sion t

he dist rict court e ntere d an inj uncti on requiring that th e mo num ent b e rem ove d fro m th e pu blic ar eas o f the J udic ial Bu ilding
. Glassroth v. Moore , 275 F.Supp.2d 1347 (M.D. A la. 2003). The dist rict c ourt noted that “ it i s the obligation of the Stateof Alabama (acting through the Chief Ju sti ce an d, sh ou l d h e f ai l or be i nc ap ab l e o f c ar

ry i ng ou thi s duty und er t he l aw, some other appropriate s tate off icial ) to remove [the monument].” Id at 13 49. Mo ore failed to comply w ith the federal injunction, and the eight associate justices, the appe lle es in t

his ca se, c omplied wit

h the cour

t’s injunc tion a

nd ordered t

he
mo num ent re mo ved
. In the Matter of Compliance , etc. , Order No. 03-01 (A la. 2003).5

The appell ants, who were not part ies in Gla ssro th , 229 F.Supp.2d 1290 a nd its progeny t

hen brought this case, alleging two counts: (1) the appell ees’ removal of the Ten Commandments monument constituted an imper missible endor sement of the “rel igion of nontheistic beli ef by the st ate,” and (2) the removal “cre ates hosti lit y agai nst re ligi on by the gove rnment pi tting and favoring the re ligi on of nontheisti c belief

s over the Judeo-Christi an faith. ” The appellants s ought an injunc tion to compel t

he appel lees to ret

urn the monument

to therotunda of

the Ala bam a Sta te Jud icial B uildin g. T he d istrict co urt g rante d ap pellee s’ mo tion to dismis s, finding that nei ther c ount st ates a cla im upon which rel ief may be grant ed. There are two issue s on appeal . Firs t, whet her the tri al cour

t corr ectly found that this court’ s ruling in Glassroth v. Moore , 335 F.3d 1282 (11t h Cir. 2003) control s and frames the a nalys is of t

he iss ues pres ented in this case, thus, requiring that the pre sent c ase be di smisse d with prej udice. Second, whethe r the r emoval of the Ten Commandments monument violated t

he Establ ishment

Clause, and thus discrim inated ag ainst “the C hristian-Ju deo fa ith” in fav or of e stablishing “a nontheisti c reli gion/fait h”. Star e D ecisis The Un ited Stat es federallegal sy stem is st ructured as a common law syst em. This s yste m embodies t he rule of sta

re deci sis t

hat “ courts should not6

lightly overrule past

decisions . . .” Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. , 39 8 U.S. 375, 403 (1970) be cause “ [s]tabil ity and predi ctabi lit

y are e ssentialfact ors in t he proper operation of the r ule of law.” Bonner v. City of Prichard , 661 F.2d 1206, 120 9 (1 1th C ir. 19 81)
. The rule of

law requi res “ fair

and expedi tious adjudi cati on by eliminating the nee d to rel iti gate e very re levant proposition in e very ca se; a nd the nec essi ty of maintaini ng public fait

h in the judic iary as a

source of impersonal and reasoned judgments.” Moragne , 398 U.S . at 40 3. T he E leven th C ircuit f ollow s the a bso lute rule of the Fift

h Circuit t

hat “a pri or decision of t he circuit

(panel or en banc) [cannot] be overrul ed by a panel but only by t he court sit

ting en banc.” Bonner , 661 F.2 d at 1 209
. In cases involving q uestions of federal law the doctrine of stare decisis also implicat es the binding nat ure of decisi ons rendered by one federal court over another. The general rul e is that a distri ct judge’s decision nei ther binds another di st ri ct j ud ge no r b i nd s h i m, alt ho ug h aj ud ge ou gh tt o g i ve gr eatwei gh tt o h i s o wn prior de cisi ons. 18-134 M OORE ’ S F EDERAL P RACTI CE

– C IVIL §134.02 (M atthew Ben der & Co ., Inc. 2 003 ). A circu it cou rt’s de cision bind s the d istrict co urts sitting with in its ju risdic tion w hile a d ecisio n by the S upr eme Co urt b inds all circu it and distric t cou rts. Id
.7

In th is case , the ap pellan ts sou ght to retur n the Ten Co mm and men ts
monu ment to the rotund a of the Alaba ma State Judicial Building in M ontgom ery, Alabama. District

Judge Myron T hompson, w ho presided over the present case, had also presided over Gla ssro th , 229 F.S upp.2d 1 290 (affirme d by Gla ssro th , 335 F.3 d 12 82) , Gla ssro th , 275 F.Supp.2d 1347) , and Gla ssro th , 278 F.S upp .2d 1 272
. In th ese p revio us ca ses, h e had corr ectly fo und that th e Te n C om man dm ents
mon ume nt violated the Es tablishm ent Clau se and , in accord ance w ith this cou rt’s affi rmance, he ordere d the monument r emoved. The appe lla nts, by aski ng the distric t cou rt to m and ate the retur n of the T en C om man dm ents m onu men t, seek to
acco mp lish tw o thin gs. F irst, the y seek to co mp el Jud ge T hom pso n to ig nor e his prio r rulin gs an d to d efy th is cou rt’s ru ling th at the T en C om man dm ents
mo num ent v iolated the E stablis hm ent C lause . Sec ond , they s eek to collate rally att ack the decis ions re ndered by bot h the di stri ct cour

t and t his cour t by at tempting to eff ectively ove rturn t

he deci sions r endered in Glassroth v. Moore , 229 F.Supp.2d 1290 and i ts proge ny. This att ack is in viol ati on of prior decis ions and is not open to the app ellants, and the district court held accordingly. Establishment C lause The Establishment Clause provides t hat government “shallmake no law
res pec ti ng anestabl is hment of r el igi on. ” U.S. C ONST . amend. I. By t his t he8

Establishment Clauseseeks “t o afford protecti on [against] ‘sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the soverei gn in religi ous activi ties. ’” Lemon v. Kurtzman , 403 U.S. 602, 612 (1971). The Supre me Court has e stabl ished a three -ti er te st t o be used i n deter mining whethe r a st ate a cti on violates t he Esta blish men t Clau se. Id . “[A ] statute or p ractice wh ich to uch es up on r eligio n, if it i s to be permissible under the Establ ishment Clause, must [ 1] have a secular purpose; [2] it

must neither advance nor inhibit rel igion in it s principalor primary effect; and [3] it must not foster an exces sive entangl ement with reli gion.” Co unty of Allegheny v. Am. Civil Liberti es Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter , 49 2 U.S. 573, 592 (1989). In this cas e the appell ants contend that the removal of the Ten Comm andments monum ent creat ed empty space, and t hat this empty space violates the E stablis hm ent C lause beca use it is an en dor sem ent o f relig ion, o r in th is instance, nontheism. This argument is wit hout merit. I f the appell ants were correct in their ass ertion an Establ ishment Clause viol ation could never be cure d because every time a vi olation is found and cure d by the r emoval of t he statuteor pract ice t hat cur e it self

would violate t

he Establ ishment

Clause by

leaving behind emp ty spa ce. As this c ourt not ed in Sm ith v. B d. of Sch ool C om m’rs of M obile Co unty ,9

“[t ]he Supreme Court

has never

esta blis hed a comprehe nsive test f or dete rmining the ‘delicate question’ of what con stitutes a reli gious belief for purp oses of the first amendment .
. . . ” 827 F.2d 684, 689 ( 11th Cir. 1987). Moreover, neit her the Supreme Court nor t

his cour t has de termi ned that

“sec ular humani sm is a r eli gion for purposes of the est ablishment cl ause.” Id . The argument used by t

he appell ants i s simi lar to the one us ed by the appell ees i n Sm ith , 827 F.2d 684. In that case, appell ees contended that if school pr ayer vi olat ed the Establi shment Clause, then al l menti on of ‘se cular humanism’, must be st

ricke n from the s chool textb ook s. Id at 688. They sought to exclude home economics text books from the
curri culum bec aus e the bo oks “ impl [i ed] strong lythat aper son u ses thesame process in deci ding a moral issue t hat he uses in choosi ng one pair of shoes over another . . .” Id at 690-1, and in choos ing his tory a nd socia l sci ence t extbooks because the “books fai led t o include a suff ici ent di scussi on of the r ole of r eli gion in history

and culture. ” Id at 693. This court, without finding that “secular humanism is a reli gion for purposes of the est ablishment cl ause,” Id at 68 9, he ld that these textbooks do n ot violate the Establishment Clause b ecause their purpo se is pure ly se cular

and the Establi shment Cla use does not

requir e “equa l time” for religio n. Id at 69 4-5
. Th e distr ict cou rt cor rectly f oun d tha t it wa s bo und by th e rulin gs in10

Gla ssro th , 229 F.S upp .2d 1 290 and its pro gen y; ther efor e its dis miss al w ith prejudice must be af

firmed, and it

correctly held that

the removal of the Ten Commandments monument nei ther vi olat es the Establ ishment Clause nor discrim inates aga inst “the C hristian-Ju deo F aith” in fav or of e stablishing “a
no nthe i sti c r el i gi on / fa i t h. ” T he j ud gme nt of t he di st ri ct co urti s AF FI RMED.