Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/US_Government_Resources/77287932-No-in-the-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-ken-l-salazar-secretary-of-the-interior-et-al-petitioners-frank-buono-respondent.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:27:04+00:00

Document:
Download "NO In The Supreme Court of the United States. KEN L. SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Petitioners, FRANK BUONO, Respondent."
5 1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 1 Citizens United ( CU ), a Virginia corporation, is a nonprofit educational and advocacy membership organization exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue code ( IRC ). CU is dedicated to certain important principles, including those of limited government, national sovereignty and rights secured under the United States Constitution, and it presents and communicates its views and the views of its members on legislative and public policy issues to federal, state and local government officials, as well as the general public. Citizens United Foundation ( CUF ), a Virginia corporation, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization exempt from federal income taxation pursuant to IRC section 501(c)(3). CUF conducts research and informs and educates the public on a variety of issues of national importance, including issues related to belief in God, the role of traditional families and religious traditions in American society, the original intent of the Framers, and the correct interpretation of the United States Constitution. This case is of particular importance to CU and CUF because it involves the very survival of any veterans 1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, it is hereby certified that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and that no person or entity other than these amici curiae made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. These amici curiae requested and received the written consent of the parties to the filing of this amicus curiae brief, in the form of letters and/or s from counsel of record for the respective parties. Such written consent has been submitted for filing to the Clerk of Court.
8 4 Preserve owned by private individuals. The district court held that the land exchange would not remedy the Establishment Clause violation, and enjoined the government from carrying out the land exchange. The court of appeals upheld the decision rendered by the district court. The court of appeals held that even if the land was transferred in accordance with the Act, such a transfer would not cure the Establishment Clause violation and the government would continue to violate the injunction issued by the district court. Thus, in essence, the court of appeals determined that the Act violated the Establishment Clause. 2 In making such a determination, the court of appeals failed to follow law established by this Court in Van Orden, infra. and Lemon, infra. to determine if the statute violates the Establishment Clause. Rather, the court of appeals evaluated the Act authorizing the land exchange under a standard established in the Seventh Circuit, without taking into account all of the proper considerations necessary to determine whether an Establishment Clause violation exists. 2 Although the court of appeals framed the issue on appeal as whether the Act violated the district court s injunction, the court of appeals analysis focused on whether the Act violated the Establishment Clause. Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 758, (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that [i]n Buono II, we noted that the presence of a religious symbol on once-public land that has been transferred into private hands may still violate the Establishment Clause. But we left for another day the question of whether a transfer completed under section 8121 would pass constitutional muster. In considering that question, we examine both the form and substance of the transaction to determine whether the government action endorsing religion has actually ceased. (citations omitted)).
9 5 This case is similar to Van Orden as both involve Establishment Clause challenges to monuments. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005). The monument in Van Orden was on display on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol and consisted of a monolith with several symbols of religious significance, the most prominent being the text of the Ten Commandments. The monument was given to the State by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a private civic organization, in order to highlight the Commandments role in shaping civic morality as part of the organization s efforts to combat juvenile delinquency. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 701. In Van Orden, just as in this case, the monument had stood for decades without challenge until a citizen who encountered the monument brought suit seeking a declaration that the monument violated the Establishment Clause and an injunction for its removal. The primary test utilized by this Court prior to Van Orden to evaluate possible Establishment Clause violations is the Lemon test. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). However, as noted by Chief Justice Rehnquist in Van Orden, the Court has not applied the Lemon test in every instance when an Establishment Clause challenge has been raised. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 686. This Court declined to use the Lemon test in evaluating whether the monument at issue in Van Orden violated the Establishment Clause and stated: [W]e think it not useful in dealing with the sort of passive monument that Texas has erected on its Capitol grounds. Instead, our analysis is driven both by the nature of the monument and by our Nation s history. Id.
16 12 the Preserve. Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 2004, Pub. L. No , 8121(a) and (b), 117 Stat It is clear by the language contained in the Act that its purpose is purely a secular one. The mere fact that the Memorial which sits on the land is in the shape of a cross does not make the purpose of the Act a religious one or establish the existence of a violation of the Establishment Clause. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 743. The purpose of government action and therefore the existence of government neutrality is discerned from its text, structure, purpose and history as well as the body of evidence contained in the record. Paulson v. Abdelnour, 145 Cal. App. 4th 400 (2006), citing, McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 861, 868 (2005). In order to preserve the Memorial, the government chose to authorize a land exchange and relinquish ownership of the Memorial rather than remove it. This scenario is similar to the scenario in the Mercier case in the Seventh Circuit involving a Ten Commandments monument in a public park. Mercier v. Fraternal Order of Eagles, 395 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2005). The City defendant in that case chose to sell the monument back to the private party that donated it rather than remove it. Id. The court stated that while removal was an option, so also was the sale. By selling the Monument site to end a perceived endorsement, the City exercised an option that served a secular purpose. Mercier, 395 F.3d at 705. In this case, the government when faced with an Establishment Clause challenge, chose to arrange for a land exchange rather than remove the Memorial. Such a choice, and thus the Act, served a secular purpose, similar to Mercier.
) ) ) DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT. Defendants Jacob C. Shade, Creade V. Brodie, Jr., and William R.
Nos. 11-11021 & 11-11067 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF FLORIDA, by and through Attorney General Pam Bondi, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees / Cross-Appellants, v.
No eu t the niteb GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, VS. G. GRANT LYON, Respondent.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. September Term, Petition Docket No MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, vs.
Town Of Chester: An Answer On Class-Member Standing?
i Nos. 17-74; 17-71 In the Supreme Court of the United States MARKLE INTERESTS, L.L.C., ET AL., Petitioners, v. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, ET AL., Respondents. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, v. Petitioner, U.S.
e. City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) i. RFRA Unconstitutional f. Court Reversal on Use of Peyote in 2006 B. Freedom of Speech and Press 1.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC08-1877 Third DCA Case Nos. 3D07-2875 / 3D07-3106 L.T. Case No. 04-17958 CA 15 VALAT INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD. Petitioner, vs. MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. Respondent.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.