City of Edmond v. Robinson

Background

The dispute involves a city seal that includes a Latin cross and people who say that symbol offends them; the only factual statement in the opinion is that these plaintiffs are non-Christians who live or work in Edmond. Petitioners asked the high court to resolve a split among Courts of Appeals about whether a city seal with a religious symbol violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Reasoning

The Court declined to take the case. The dissenting opinion argued that the appeals courts are divided on two linked questions: whether a visible religious symbol on a city seal offends the Constitution, and whether people who merely see the symbol have shown the personal injury required to file a federal suit. The dissent pointed to earlier cases: one line of decisions (Foremaster) treated daily exposure to an offending symbol as a sufficient personal injury, while another (Valley Forge) said mere offense or psychological upset is not enough.

Real world impact

Because the high court refused to review the case, the split among lower courts remains unresolved and different appeals courts may continue to reach opposing results. That leaves uncertainty about when residents may sue over religious symbols used by cities and about the reach of federal courts to review such government actions.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented from the denial and would have granted review, asking the parties to address whether the plaintiffs showed an injury-in-fact sufficient to give them standing to bring their Establishment Clause claim.