Today, the 红杏视频 and 红杏视频 of San Diego will argue before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the Mt. Soledad cross, a Latin cross that sits atop federal land in Southern California, violates the First Amendment prohibition against government-endorsed religion.
In July 2008, a federal judge ruled that the cross is constitutional after the federal government obtained the land the cross sits on through a special act of Congress. He rationalized this decision by saying that the primary effect of this prominent cross is "patriotic and nationalistic, not religious." Today's argument before the 9th Circuit is an appeal of that decision.
We will argue that the federal government鈥檚 acquisition of the land in 2006 was nothing more than an effort to evade a long series of clear court decisions invalidating the city of San Diego鈥檚 display of the 43-foot tall cross. (The first lawsuit against this particular cross was brought in 1989, on behalf of an atheist Vietnam War veteran.) Courts have routinely recognized that governmental displays of distinctly sectarian symbols, such as crosses, violate the First Amendment.
The 红杏视频 has always defended the First Amendment rights of individuals to freely practice their religion, or no religion at all. But the government's display of the Soledad cross violates that same First Amendment right by privileging one set of beliefs over all others.
Or put it this way: A giant cross in front of a church or on your front lawn is fine, and we'd defend your constitutional right to these displays. But a giant cross on government land is not.
See the difference?
We hope the 9th Circuit does.
Learn More 红杏视频 the Issues on This Page
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Religious Liberty
红杏视频 Urges Supreme Court to Reject Mandatory Opt-Outs from Maryland School District鈥檚 Inclusive English Language Arts Curriculum
WASHINGTON 鈥 The 红杏视频 and 红杏视频 of Maryland filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court today in Mahmoud v. Taylor, urging the court to reject a challenge to a Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) policy barring opt-outs from its inclusive English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum. Through children鈥檚 literature, the ELA curriculum acquaints students with a diversity of viewpoints and people in their community, including LGBTQ peers and their families. The brief argues that, because the 鈥渘o opt-out鈥 policy is religion-neutral and applies regardless of the reason for objection, the policy should not be analyzed under a 鈥渟trict scrutiny鈥 legal standard and should instead be subject to a more lenient 鈥渞ational basis鈥 review, which is easily satisfied in the case. Although MCPS previously allowed opt-outs for any reason from portions of the ELA curriculum featuring storybooks with LGBTQ characters and themes, the growing number of opt-outs proved be disruptive and divisive. Teachers were forced to divert time and resources to create alternative lessons for students who opted out, and many students simply did not attend school at all for the day. In addition, the opt-outs stigmatized LGBTQ students and those with LGBTQ family members. As a result, MCPS properly barred all ELA opt-outs, preventing further disruption to the classroom environment and the educational mission of the ELA curriculum. The decision prompted a group of parents to sue, asserting a violation of their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and other constitutional provisions. 鈥淩eligious liberty is fundamentally important, but it doesn鈥檛 force public schools to exempt students from secular lessons that don鈥檛 align with their families鈥 religious views,鈥 said Daniel Mach, director of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. 鈥淢andating opt-outs would wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions, stoking divisiveness and disruption, and undermining a core purpose of public education 鈥 to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society.鈥 鈥淚n a time of ever-increasing polarization in our country, exemptions that would require schools to allow children to refuse exposure to materials and curriculum about people from various backgrounds is divisive and harmful,鈥 said Deborah Jeon, legal director for the 红杏视频 of Maryland. 鈥淥ur education system should be one that embraces differences as an opportunity to foster understanding and bring people together. Anything else would send ripples of censorship across the country, negatively impacting countless communities and children who deserve a balanced education.鈥Court Case: Mahmoud v. McKnightAffiliate: Maryland -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Religious Liberty
Oklahoma Faith Leaders, Education Advocates, and Parents Urge Supreme Court to Block Nation鈥檚 First Religious Public Charter School
WASHINGTON, D.C. 鈥 A group of Oklahoma faith leaders, public education advocates, and public-school parents 鈥 who are among the plaintiffs in a lawsuit to stop Oklahoma鈥檚 creation of the nation鈥檚 first religious public charter school 鈥 today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to protect religious freedom and public education by affirming that charter schools are public schools that must be secular and open to all students. In an amicus brief filed today in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the group explained that the Oklahoma Supreme Court correctly ruled last year that Oklahoma鈥檚 charter schools are public schools and, as governmental entities, must abide by the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 protections for religious freedom and church-state separation. Therefore, the proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which intends to indoctrinate students in one religion, cannot operate as a public charter school. The amici, which include OKPLAC (the Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition) and eight Oklahoman taxpayers, are plaintiffs in OKPLAC v. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, a separate lawsuit in Oklahoma state court challenging the charter school board鈥檚 approval of St. Isidore鈥檚 application to become a public school. That case is on hold while the case before the U.S. Supreme Court is being resolved. The plaintiffs in OKPLAC are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the 红杏视频, Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation, with support from Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann. The organizations issued the following statement: 鈥淭he law is clear: Charter schools are public schools and must be secular and open to all students. The Oklahoma Supreme Court correctly found that the state鈥檚 approval of a religious public charter school was unlawful and unconstitutional. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that ruling and safeguard public education, church-state separation, and religious freedom for all. 鈥淥klahoma taxpayers, including our clients, should not be forced to fund a religious public school that plans to indoctrinate students into one religion and discriminate against students and staff. Converting public schools into Sunday schools would be a dangerous sea change for our democracy.鈥 In addition to OKPLAC, today鈥檚 amicus brief was filed on behalf of Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Brenda Len茅, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke and Erika Wright. The team of attorneys that represents the amici is led by Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United and includes Luke Anderson of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the 红杏视频; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Mason of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann. -
Press ReleaseMar 2025
Religious Liberty
Oklahoma Supreme Court blocks Superintendent Ryan Walters鈥 attempts to purchase Bibles and Bible-infused instructional materials
Oklahoma City 鈥 In a victory for religious freedom, public education and church-state separation, the Oklahoma Supreme Court today temporarily blocked Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE) from spending taxpayer dollars on Bibles and Bible-infused instructional materials. The order came in the lawsuit Rev. Lori Walke v. Ryan Walters, which was filed in October 2024 on behalf of 32 Oklahoma families, teachers and faith leaders. The plaintiffs are represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Oklahoma Foundation, the Freedom From Religion Foundation and Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice. The Court鈥檚 order temporarily stayed 鈥渨ork on any new request by the OSDE for the purchase of Bibles.鈥 In addition, the order paused work on a request for proposals issued by OSDE on February 21, 2025. This request for proposals sought suppliers for 鈥渟upplemental instructional materials that effectively integrate the Bible and character education into elementary-level social studies curriculum.鈥 The organizations representing the plaintiffs will continue fighting Walters鈥 Bible-education mandate and additional filings are expected soon. They issued the following joint statement on the win: 鈥淭his victory is an important step toward protecting the religious freedom of every student and parent in Oklahoma. Superintendent Ryan Walters has been abusing his power and the court checked those abuses today. Our diverse coalition of families and clergy remains united against Walters鈥檚 extremism and in favor of a core First Amendment principle: the separation of church and state.Affiliate: Oklahoma -
Press ReleaseJan 2025
Religious Liberty
Supreme Court to Hear Oklahoma Case Involving Nation鈥檚 First Religious Public Charter School
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the 红杏视频, Education Law Center, and Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following statement concerning the petitions for certiorari granted today by the U.S. Supreme Court in Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. The organizations represent faith leaders, public school parents, and public education advocates in a separate lawsuit to stop Oklahoma from sponsoring and funding St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. 鈥淭he law is clear: Charter schools are public schools and must be secular and open to all students. The Oklahoma Supreme Court correctly found that the state鈥檚 approval of a religious public charter school was unlawful and unconstitutional. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that ruling and safeguard public education, church-state separation, and religious freedom for all. Oklahoma taxpayers, including our plaintiffs, should not be forced to fund a religious public school that plans to discriminate against students and staff and indoctrinate students into one religion. Converting public schools into Sunday schools would be a dangerous sea change for our democracy.鈥 AU, the 红杏视频, ELC, and FFRF, with support from Oklahoma-based counsel Odom & Sparks PLLC and J. Douglas Mann, represent Oklahomans who object to their tax dollars funding a religious public charter school that will discriminate against students and employees based on their religion and LGBTQ+ status, won鈥檛 commit to adequately serving students with disabilities, and will indoctrinate students into one religion. These nine Oklahomans and OKPLAC, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting public education, filed their lawsuit, OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, on July 31, 2023, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. Following the June 2024 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in Drummond v. OSVCSB, the OKPLAC plaintiffs and defendants reached a court-approved agreement to put the OKPLAC case on hold until at least Feb. 1, 2025, while developments in the Drummond case are pending. St. Isidore agreed not to accept charter-school funding from the state or open to students as a charter school during the 2024-25 school year as part of that agreement. The plaintiffs in the OKPLAC case include the Oklahoma Parent Legislative Advocacy Coalition, Melissa Abdo, Krystal Bonsall, Leslie Briggs, Brenda Len茅, Michele Medley, Dr. Bruce Prescott, the Rev. Dr. Mitch Randall, the Rev. Dr. Lori Walke, and Erika Wright. The team of attorneys that represents the plaintiffs is led by Alex J. Luchenitser of Americans United and includes Jenny Samuels of Americans United; Daniel Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the 红杏视频; Robert Kim, Jessica Levin, and Wendy Lecker of Education Law Center; Patrick Elliott of FFRF; Benjamin H. Odom, John H. Sparks, Michael W. Ridgeway, and Lisa M. Mason of Odom & Sparks; and J. Douglas Mann.