Salazar v. Buono
Headline: Court reverses lower-court ban and remands, limiting a judge’s power to block Congress’s effort to transfer a World War I memorial plot to a veterans group while sending the dispute back for review.
Holding: The Court held that Buono had standing to seek enforcement of his earlier injunction but that the District Court erred by enjoining the land-transfer statute, so the Ninth Circuit’s judgment is reversed and the case remanded.
- Sends the dispute back to the lower court for renewed review of the land transfer.
- Keeps Congress’s transfer plan legally alive but not finally implemented.
- Requires courts to reassess injunctions when Congress changes relevant facts.
Summary
Background
Frank Buono, a retired Park Service employee and regular visitor to the Mojave National Preserve, sued after a Latin cross placed on federal land to honor World War I soldiers remained in place. Buono argued the cross on federal land violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion and obtained a 2002 injunction ordering its removal. While appeals were pending, Congress passed a 2004 law directing the land with the cross be transferred to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in a land-exchange. Buono returned to court to stop that transfer.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court held Buono had standing to press enforcement of the earlier injunction because he had a judicially recognized interest in ensuring compliance. The Court then ruled the District Court should not have permanently blocked the congressional land-exchange without considering whether the transfer changed the legal findings. Justice Kennedy emphasized that the statute was a substantial change of circumstances and that courts must reassess whether injunctive relief remains necessary. Several Justices wrote separate opinions: Justice Alito would have allowed implementation now, Justice Scalia argued Buono lacked standing for the expanded relief, and others dissented.
Real world impact
The ruling reverses the lower courts and sends the case back for further review rather than ordering immediate removal of the memorial. Practically, Congress’s plan to convey the small plot to the VFW is not finally blocked, and courts must weigh whether the transfer removes the appearance of government endorsement. The decision preserves avenues for both enforcement and reconsideration and signals caution before invalidating congressional acts that change factual circumstances.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices disagreed about standing and the proper remedy. Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas) argued the court lacked power because Buono did not show a concrete injury from blocking the transfer. Justice Stevens (joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor) would have upheld the ban, finding the transfer continued government endorsement of a sectarian symbol. Justice Breyer would have affirmed enforcement under established injunction rules.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?