Opinion ID: 172243
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Erroneous Emphasis on Community Size

Text: The court also construes the endorsement test so as to disadvantage small communities. The panel opinion relies on the fact that Haskell County is a place where everyone knows each other. Green, 568 F.3d at 801 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). According to the court, Haskell County's small size means that the reasonable observer would conclude that the commissioners' statements of support for the monument reflect a government endorsement of religion. Id. at 802. By reaching this conclusion, the court all but creates a presumption that small-town commissioners' statements are official statements, and having done so, treats them as indicative of an endorsement of religion. Such reasoning leads to a completely untenable result: that the Establishment Clause means one thing in small-town America and something different in a metropolitan area. This cannot be correct not only from a First Amendment perspective, but also from the standpoint of announcing law that is uniform and predictable. It is telling that the court cited no legal authority or evidence for the proposition that members of a small community are more likely to view an elected representative's statement to be official speech. It is just as likely that a commissioner's neighbors in a small town would realize that the commissioner was simply speaking for himself. Certainly, context is important to an Establishment Clause inquiry, see McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 866, 125 S.Ct. 2722, but there is no reason in the law to create a presumption that all statements by small-town commissioners arise in their official capacity, any more than we should attribute a sectarian purpose to the commissioners' actions without proof more compelling than this case offers. Even if the small size of Haskell County should create a presumption that all statements by county officials reflect government policy, that presumption is rebutted by the facts of this case. The court relies upon religious statements by a commissioner as well as the presence of the commissioners at a dedication ceremony and a rally for the Ten Commandments monument to demonstrate a sectarian purpose on the part of the government. Green, 568 F.3d at 801-02. However, neither the statements nor the commissioners' presence at the ceremonies should be controlling considerations. First, while the court places great emphasis on the religious statements of the commissioners, only one commissioner actually made religious statements. Green, 568 F.3d at 802. Further, these statements were phrased in the first person, suggesting that the statements merely reflected that commissioner's personal beliefswhich, of course, are irrelevant to our inquiry. See McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 863, 125 S.Ct. 2722 (Establishment Clause analysis does not look to the veiled psyche of government officers.); Clayton v. Place, 884 F.2d 376, 380 (8th Cir.1989) (We simply do not believe elected government officials are required to check at the door whatever religious background (or lack of it) they carry with them before they act on rules that are otherwise unobjectionable.). It does not follow, then, that the personal statements of one commissioner shed any light whatsoever on the government's policy. Even assuming that one commissioner voted for the monument for religious reasons (which is by no means clear), that commissioner's statements are not probative of whether the other two commissioners voted to accept the placement of the monument in order to endorse religion. Quite simply, the purpose of the government cannot be divined from one commissioner's personal statements when there are three commissioners. [8] A truly reasonable observer would not assume otherwise. Second, the commissioners' presence at the dedication ceremony and rally does nothing to demonstrate a sectarian effect. Commissioners can be expected to attend most any public function, especially in a small town. Attendance does not necessarily indicate endorsement; rather, it reflects what elected officials doincluding attending functions and representing the constituency. The reasonable observer would not conclude that the mere presence of the commissioners at the ceremonies suggests an endorsement of religion. That is why other courts confronting a similar situation have not found the mere presence of public officials at commissioning ceremonies to be particularly relevant to the endorsement inquiry. See Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 682, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (plurality opinion) (two state legislators presided over dedication ceremony of Ten Commandments monument); Card v. City of Everett, 520 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008) (mayor accepted Ten Commandments monument at ceremony); cf. McCreary County, 545 U.S. at 851, 125 S.Ct. 2722 (judge-executive not only attended the dedication ceremony for the Ten Commandments monument but also delivered a religious address). While the court relies on this tenuous evidence of endorsement, it conspicuously neglects other contrary considerations. The commissioners never said that they were approving the monument for religious reasons. To the contrary, the record reflects that the commissioners discussed the historical aspect of the monument at the meeting where the monument was accepted. The county also had an informal policy regarding the erection of monuments that was perfectly neutral. Green, 450 F.Supp.2d at 1275-76. This neutral policy warrants further mention as it, combined with the wide variety of monuments displayed at the courthouse, does much to negate any possible message of endorsement. The fact that there were monuments for the Classes of 1954 and 1955 does not mean that the County preferred those classes over those graduating in 1957 or any other year. Nor does the presence of a monument for the Choctaw mean that the County approved of that tribe more than any other. If some other group feels lonely or neglected, they can donate a monument too under County policy. So it is with the Ten Commandments monument. These considerations dispel any notion that the display of this Ten Commandments monument violated the Establishment Clause by endorsing religion. See Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd., 515 U.S. at 781, 115 S.Ct. 2440 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (stating that a reasonable observer would know that many displays had been permitted at the park). I note that this conclusion, unlike that of the court, is consistent with the decisions reached by the other circuits that have considered Ten Commandments displays since Van Orden. This case is an outlier. See Card, 520 F.3d at 1020-21 (monument on government property); City of Plattsmouth, 419 F.3d at 776-77 (same); see also ACLU v. Mercer County, 432 F.3d 624, 636-40 (6th Cir.2005) (display in a courthouse).