Politics & Government

Murrieta Firm Joins Court Battle Over Mt. Soledad Cross

Advocates For Faith & Freedom announced Friday it supports the cross that was dedicated in 1954 as a memorial to those who died in World Wars I and II.

A Murrieta-based law firm has joined in the decades-long court battle over a San Diego landmark, the Mt. Soledad cross.

, a nonprofit firm that works to protect religious freedoms, announced Friday in an email it has filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of the memorial cross.

"Shortly after the Korean War ended, members of an American Legion Post founded the Mount Soledad Memorial Association to honor the sacrifice of the countless Americans who died during that conflict and the two World Wars. With the permission of the City of San Diego, they constructed a memorial cross to honor the fallen. 

"Congress said of the cross: '[t]he Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial was dedicated on April 18, 1954, as ‘a lasting memorial to the dead of the First and Second World Wars and the Korean conflict’ and now serves as a memorial to American veterans of all wars, including the War on Terrorism.'            

Find out what's happening in Murrietawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"Our arguments rest on the fact that this Memorial was built with a secular purpose in mind – to honor our fallen soldiers and to preserve their memory.  In our opinion, a cross is a standard symbol used to honor our heroes.
 
"However, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled that 'the record before us does not establish that Latin crosses have a well-established secular meaning as universal symbols of memorialization and remembrance.'

"In addition, they concluded (erroneously, in our opinion) that the alleged religious or anti-religious motives of private individuals who donate memorials to the government are relevant in determining a law’s primary purpose and effect in Establishment Clause cases.
 
"We believe strongly in the meaning and symbolization of this cross, and we will continue to fight against those that wish to tear it down. Our amicus brief has gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we will keep you updated on the progress of this case."

Find out what's happening in Murrietawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The U.S. Solicitor General on March 14 joined the appeal of a ruling that declared the cross unconstitutional, raising the chances that the U.S. Supreme Court will accept the case.

The appeal of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals ruling was filed last month by the Liberty Institute, a nonprofit legal group specializing in religious rights.

“The U.S. government decided to do the right thing and fight alongside the veterans in honoring the selfless sacrifice and service of the millions of veterans who courageously stood for the United States of America,” said Kelly Shackelford, chief executive officer and president of the Texas-based institute.

“Today, we are one step closer to our goal of having the Supreme Court ending this travesty for good – for the sake of all veterans and their memorials nationwide,” Shackelford said.

The court fight over the cross that overlooks La Jolla has been going on for more than two decades.

Opponents claim it violates the separation of church and state in the Establishment Clause, and imposes a symbol of one religion at the expense of others. Supporters say the 29-foot structure is only one part of a memorial to war veterans, in which symbols of other religions are represented.

According to the petition by the solicitor general, the appellate court used only one test to rule the cross unconstitutional, but other tests are available that make the monument consistent with the Establishment Clause.

The appellate decision “effectively invalidated an act of Congress and called for the government to tear down a cross that has stood without incident for 58 years as a highly venerated memorial to the nation's fallen service members,” the petition states.

The Liberty Institute calls the cross “a passive display” of religion of the type high court justices have approved in the past.

The document said the Supreme Court has previously ruled that displays with religious content don't necessarily violate the Establishment Clause.

Opponents, who demonstrated at the memorial when the appeal was announced, say the cross unconstitutionally favors a religion while on federal property.

“This cross, which is on government and public land, has no function except to promote one brand of religion,” said Bruce Gleason, who belongs to an Orange County group called Backyard Skeptics.

“The defenders of keeping the cross say that the cross is a war memorial, but it was not until a lawsuit against the cross for 1st Amendment violation did the defenders start promoting it as a war memorial.”

The Liberty Institute cited a study in which the Supreme Court takes on about 70 percent of the cases in which the solicitor general becomes involved.

—City News Service and Maggie Avants contributed to this report.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here