Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; October 17, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiffs Dr. Wayne Robinson, Curtis Battles, Wendell Miller, and Martin Feldman appealed the district court's ruling favoring the City of Edmond, Oklahoma, its mayor Randell Shadid, and City Council members regarding an Establishment Clause challenge to the City seal, which features a Christian cross. The plaintiffs, who are non-Christians residing or working in Edmond, argued that the cross's inclusion violated the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, alongside certain provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as nominal damages.
The district court initially dismissed claims against the defendants in their individual capacities and later granted partial summary judgment for the defendants concerning the Free Exercise Clause and state law claims. After a trial, the court concluded the seal did not violate the Establishment Clause per the Lemon test and found the seal valid under the Oklahoma Constitution without further explanation. The court awarded defendants costs of $5,586.38 and $2,361.00 in attorneys' fees, stating that the plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claims were not frivolous, but their Free Exercise Clause claim was baseless, as the plaintiffs acknowledged their freedom to practice their religions in the city.
The appellate court reversed the district court's judgments on both the merits of the case and the attorneys' fees, remanding for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs contest the district court's ruling in favor of defendants regarding their Establishment Clause claim, challenge the court's order for in camera disclosure of a letter from their attorney, and dispute the award of attorneys' fees and costs to defendants for what the court deemed a frivolous Free Exercise Clause claim. They request attorneys' fees and costs if they succeed in this appeal, while defendants also seek fees for defending their prior award.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing religion or impeding its free exercise. The Supreme Court employs the Lemon test for Establishment Clause violations, which mandates that government actions must: 1) have a secular purpose, 2) neither advance nor inhibit religion as a primary effect, and 3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. The test has been adapted to focus on whether government actions endorse religion.
In this case, plaintiffs acknowledge that the main issue is whether the City seal's primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion. Applying the "effects" test requires evaluating the context of the government action and considering the perception of an average observer. Previous cases have established that government seals or logos with religious imagery typically violate the Establishment Clause. Consistent with these precedents, the Edmond City seal is found to violate the Establishment Clause, echoing the findings in Friedman, where a similar county seal featuring a Latin cross was also challenged.
The district court initially found no violation of the Establishment Clause regarding a county seal featuring a cross, viewing it as a historical representation of the Catholic Church's role in the southwest. On appeal, this decision was reversed, as the appellate court determined that the lower court erred under both clearly erroneous and de novo standards of review. Key factors included the prominent display of the cross, which was the sole visual element surrounded by rays of light, and the perception it conveyed. A rabbi testified that the seal implied an official endorsement of Christianity, while the cross historically symbolized oppression for Jewish people and would likely evoke similar feelings of threat among other religious and cultural groups, including Lebanese Muslims and Native Americans in the county.
The court emphasized that the seal was pervasive in daily life, appearing on all county paperwork, vehicles, and uniforms, thus violating the Establishment Clause. Additionally, the decision referenced a similar case involving the city seal of St. George, Utah, where the court found that the depiction of the LDS temple also raised genuine issues regarding its endorsement of religion. The analysis included comparisons to other circuit cases, notably Harris v. City of Zion and Kuhn v. City of Rolling Meadows, where both seals were deemed to violate the Establishment Clause due to their religious imagery and extensive use in official capacities, suggesting an endorsement of Christianity that contravened the First Amendment.
The court determined that the Zion seal violated both the purpose and effects tests established by the Lemon case, primarily due to its clear religious intent since its adoption in 1902, which was not mitigated by its later designation for historical purposes. The court concluded that the seal represented an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity, rejecting the argument that it merely commemorated the city's historical origins. Zion's attempt to differentiate its seal from the already deemed unconstitutional Bernalillo County seal was dismissed as unfounded, noting that the size of the Latin cross relative to other symbols did not create a meaningful distinction. The court found that the prominent presence of the cross in the Edmond seal, similar to those in Bernalillo County and other cases, clearly conveyed a religious significance. Arguments that the seal was permissible as a symbol of the city's history were rejected, as such claims do not absolve the endorsement of religion. The court emphasized that the perspective of the average observer is critical, concluding that this observer would interpret the seal as endorsing Christianity, echoing findings from previous cases. Defendants' claims about the majority's perception and the neutrality of other elements on the seal were also dismissed, reinforcing that the endorsement of religion remains the primary concern under the Establishment Clause.
The court acknowledges that each case is fact-specific, particularly regarding governmental seals' contexts under the Establishment Clause. It rejects the defendants' argument to distinguish between the Edmond and Bernalillo County seals based on specific design elements. Citing the Seventh Circuit's decision in Kuhn, the court emphasizes that the seals convey endorsement rather than neutrality, asserting that the Edmond City seal promotes specific images—including religious symbols—which express the City’s approval of Christianity alongside other civic elements. The court declines to engage in detailed graphic analysis, asserting no principled basis exists for differentiating between religious images in seals. Consequently, it holds that the Edmond City seal violates the Establishment Clause, overturning the district court’s decision. As the plaintiffs prevail, they are entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988, prompting the remand of fee determinations to the district court. The issue of attorney fees also involves appellant Barbara Orza, who challenges costs assessed against her after her claim was dismissed. The document references the historical significance of local landmarks and the origins of the covered wagon symbol. Although the Lemon test has faced criticism, it remains applicable in this case, with the court affirming the plaintiffs' standing and concluding that the seal’s violation of the endorsement prong is sufficient to establish an Establishment Clause breach, negating the need to address the other prongs of the test.
Ambiguity exists regarding the standard of review for 'constitutional facts' related to district court findings on the Lemon test. In previous cases, conflicting interpretations from the Supreme Court indicated that either a clearly erroneous or de novo standard might apply. However, it was concluded in Friedman that the district court's findings were incorrect under both standards, leaving the applicable standard unresolved. Nonetheless, it is noted that several circuits may favor a de novo standard for reviewing First Amendment issues, which are considered questions of law, allowing no deference to the lower court's conclusions.
The excerpt further references multiple cases supporting the notion that First Amendment constitutional facts warrant de novo review. It emphasizes that the district court's findings regarding public perception of religious symbols, such as the LDS Church temple versus a Latin cross, require different levels of inquiry based on familiarity. Defendants argue that the nature of the inquiry should be purely factual and reversible only if clearly erroneous; however, the excerpt does not find this persuasive. Lastly, it mentions a Fifth Circuit ruling that dismissed the notion that incorporating religious symbols in municipal insignia automatically violates the Establishment Clause, suggesting that context matters significantly in these determinations.
The court distinguished the case from Friedman based on several factors: the absence of undisputed secular symbols on the Friedman seal, the accompanying phrase "With This We Conquer," the recent expanded use of the seal by the county, and knowledge by at least one county commissioner regarding the cross's representation of the Catholic Church's role in the Southwest's settlement. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Austin city seal does not endorse religion in a meaningful way, thereby upholding its constitutionality. The court noted that while visibility of the cross was significant in Friedman, the less discernible nature of the cross in the current context might not constitute impermissible church-state authority. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed the district court improperly required in camera production of a letter that they argued violated attorney-client privilege. However, defendants pointed out that plaintiffs did not demonstrate any prejudice or harm from this alleged error and failed to address it in their reply brief, leading the court to decline further consideration of the issue.
