Opinion ID: 173618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Federal Establishment Clause claim

Text: 1. Standard of Review This court reviews de novo a district court's decision in a First Amendment case, O'Connor, 416 F.3d at 1223; Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 159 F.3d 1227, 1230 n. 7 (10th Cir.1998) (en banc), and undertakes an independent examination of the whole record. O'Connor, 416 F.3d at 1223; see also Weinbaum, 541 F.3d at 1029 (We review de novo a district court's findings of constitutional fact and its ultimate conclusions regarding a First Amendment challenge.) (internal citations and quotations omitted). More specifically, in Establishment Clause cases, we consider `a district court's findings on each part of the Lemon[ v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971) ] test' to be `constitutional facts' that we review de novo. Green, 568 F.3d at 795-96 (quoting Robinson v. City of Edmond, 68 F.3d 1226, 1230 n. 7 (10th Cir.1995)). Where, as here, the district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, we must ensure that `there is no genuine issue as to any material fact' and that [Defendants are] `entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Weinbaum, 541 F.3d at 1029 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). In so doing, this court view[s] the evidence and draw[s] reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 649 (10th Cir.2006) (quoting Keys Youth Servs., Inc. v. City of Olathe, 248 F.3d 1267, 1270 (10th Cir.2001)). 2. The Lemon/Endorsement Test The first clause of the First Amendment provides, `Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ...' U.S. Const. amend. I. This substantive limitation applies also to the `legislative power of the States and their political subdivisions' as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment. Weinbaum, 541 F.3d at 1029 (quoting Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 301, 120 S.Ct. 2266, 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000)). The Establishment Clause enshrines the principle that government may not act in ways that `aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.' Id. (quoting Snyder, 159 F.3d at 1230); see also County of Allegheny v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 590, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (stating that the Establishment Clause guarantees religious liberty and equality to `the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism') (quoting Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985)). This concept is not, however, as simple as it may sound, and courts have struggled mightily to articulate when government action has crossed the constitutional line. See Bauchman ex. rel . Bauchman v. W. High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 551 (10th Cir.1997) (noting the Supreme Court's failure to prescribe a general analytic framework within which to evaluate Establishment Clause claims, and that many believe the Court's modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence is in hopeless disarray) (citation and quotation omitted). Although the Supreme Court is sharply divided on the standard governing Establishment Clause cases, see Green, 568 F.3d at 797 n. 8 (discussing the confusion generated by the Supreme Court's decision in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005)), this court has recently affirmed that the touchstone for Establishment Clause analysis remains the tripartite test set out in Lemon.  Green, 568 F.3d at 796 (quoting Weinbaum, 541 F.3d at 1030); see also Gonzales v. N. Tp. of Lake County, 4 F.3d 1412, 1417-18 (7th Cir.1993) (Although the test is much maligned, the Supreme Court recently reminded us that Lemon is controlling precedent and should be the framework used by courts when reviewing Establishment Clause challenges.). The Court in Lemon established three general tests to determine whether a state has violated the principles protected by the Establishment Clause: First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105 (citations and quotations omitted). If any of these tests are violated, the state practice will be deemed unconstitutional. See Green, 568 F.3d at 797-98 (A governmental action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of three prongs of the Lemon test.) (emphasis in original). On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have violated the first and second Lemon tests. Addressing the first and second Lemon tests, [t]his court `interpret[s] the purpose and effect prongs of Lemon in light of Justice O'Connor's endorsement test.' Weinbaum, 541 F.3d at 1030 (quoting O'Connor, 416 F.3d at 1224); see also Bauchman, 132 F.3d at 552 (Justice O'Connor's `endorsement test' is now widely accepted as the controlling analytical framework for evaluating Establishment Clause claims.). Under that test, [t]he purpose prong of the Lemon test asks whether government's actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion. The effect prong asks whether, irrespective of government's actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring). Justice O'Connor's modification of the Lemon test makes our inquiry very case-specific, as it asks this court to examine carefully the particular context and history of these displays before concluding what effect they would likely have on the reasonable observer. [9] See County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 605-08, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (defending the fact-specific nature of the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence which requires that courts examine[] the particular contexts in which the government employs religious symbols).