Salazar v. Buono

2010-04-28

Headline: Court reverses lower courts’ block on Congress’s plan to transfer the Sunrise Rock memorial to a veterans group, sending the dispute back for reconsideration and making the transfer more likely.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Requires lower courts to reassess whether land transfer ends government endorsement of religion.
Makes transfer of Sunrise Rock to a veterans group administratively possible while litigation continues.
Leaves final outcome undecided; local visitors and veterans affected by future rulings.

Topics: religion and government, war memorials, federal land transfers, Establishment Clause, veterans monuments

Summary

Background

A veterans group placed a simple white Latin cross on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve in 1934. A retired Park Service employee sued, saying the cross on federal land conveyed government endorsement of religion. In 2002 a federal court ordered the Government to stop permitting the cross display; the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Congress then passed a 2004 law directing a one-acre land transfer to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), and the District Court later enjoined that transfer.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court majority concluded the District Court erred in blocking the land-transfer law without fully weighing the changed legal and factual landscape. The majority said the earlier injunction rested solely on the perception that a cross on federal land endorsed religion. Congress’s statute presented a substantial change in circumstances and a congressional accommodation that the lower court should consider before invalidating the law. The Court remanded so the lower courts can reassess whether the transfer actually cures or perpetuates any endorsement problem and consider narrower remedies.

Real world impact

The ruling sends the dispute back to lower courts, making the land-transfer option more likely to be implemented unless judges find a continuing Establishment Clause violation. Veterans groups, the Park Service, and visitors will be affected by how the lower courts evaluate ownership, signage, and the memorial’s national designation. The ultimate outcome remains undecided while litigation continues.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito would have allowed immediate implementation and held the statute constitutional. Justice Stevens (joined by two Justices) dissented, arguing the transfer perpetuates government endorsement because of Congress’ prior actions and the memorial’s national designation. Justice Scalia wrote separately that Buono lacked standing to obtain the expanded relief.