On its most recent docket, the United States Supreme Court considered three cases of significance for Christians during its 2009-10 term.  They were:

1. Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, (regarding freedom of association for a Christian student group)

2. Salazar, Secretary of the Interior v. Buono (the Mojave Desert Cross case)

3. Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. (regarding advocacy group participation within thirty days of an election)

In addition, one federal district court decision, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Barack Obama (the National Day of Prayer case), also merits some discussion.

Christian Student Group

In this case, a group of Hastings Law School students attempted to gain official school recognition for their Christian student group.  Official recognition would have allowed the group equal access to school funds and facilities.  The Christian Legal Society (CLS) requires its members to be professing Christians, including signing a statement of faith and committing to abstinence before marriage.  Law school administrators denied this Christian group official recognition based on their membership standards, claiming the school had an “accept-all-comers” policy requiring all student organizations to accept all Hastings law students as members, and even leaders, whether or not they were willing to meet the organization’s membership standards.

The CLS decision was a disappointment.  The Supreme Court Justices disagreed over whether the school’s “accept-all-comers” policy was, in fact, a documented, legitimate policy equally applied to all student groups.  The Court’s five-member majority found the policy to be legitimate, and a reasonable restriction on student organizations seeking official recognition.  The Court then sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the law school was using this policy only against the Christian group.  The law school has previously claimed under oath that its policy is applied equally to all student groups.

The Mojave Desert Cross

This case involved a separation of church and state challenge to a cross installed on a rock outcropping in a remote section of the Mojave Desert in 1934 as a memorial to honor fallen American soldiers from World War I.  The case was not about the constitutionality of the original installation of the cross, but rather the Supreme Court considered whether the government could validly transfer the land to a private group.  The land was transferred to the Veterans of Foreign Wars for the purpose of allowing the VFW to maintain the cross.

In 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California held that the cross must be removed because a “reasonable observer” would perceive the cross, installed on federal land, as an endorsement of religion by the government (violating the alleged separation of church and state).  However, before the Ninth Circuit actually issued its 2004 ruling, Congress stepped in and passed a federal law permitting the land to be transferred to the VFW in exchange for a nearby piece of land and a possible cash payment.

Frank Buono, the retired Park Service employee who originally sought to have the cross removed, then returned to court to block the land transfer, which was intended to preserve the cross.  A majority of Supreme Court Justices ruled that the lower courts should not ignore the actions of Congress in this circumstance and sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration.  Before the case could be reconsidered, however, the Mojave Desert Cross was stolen.  The National Park Service is refusing to allow the cross to be replaced until this litigation is fully concluded.  Pray that our World War I veterans will not continue to be dishonored in this tragic situation.

Citizens United

In the case of Citizens United, the Supreme Court broadened free speech rights for all Americans.  Previously, federal election law prohibited corporations from using their general funds to advocate for or against a political candidate within thirty days of an election.  The essential holding of Citizens United is that a corporation is nothing more than a group of individual citizens who associate for a particular purpose.  Therefore, the Court reasoned, if it is illegal to interfere with the free speech rights of an individual to advocate for or against a candidate within thirty days of an election, it should also be illegal to interfere with the free speech rights of a corporation in the same manner.  This ruling makes it easier for Christians and all citizens to join together in groups to effect political change, which is one of the fundamental purposes of our First Amendment protections.

National Day Of Prayer

In this United States District Court case, Judge Barbara Crabb ruled that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional, stating that her decision was not a determination “that the message [of Christianity] is harmful, unimportant or undeserving of dissemination.”  Rather, she claimed that holding the National Day of Prayer to be unconstitutional was part of a general effort to “carry out the Founder’s plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society.”  The essential error in Judge Crabb’s ruling is that her decision was an attempt to interpret the U.S. Constitution in an historical vacuum.  If we consider the words of our Constitution in light of our nation’s actual history, including our obvious Judeo-Christian religious heritage, Judge Crabb’s decision becomes outrageously wrong.  Fortunately, the administration is appealing this very bad decision, and it may eventually reach the United States Supreme Court for a final judgment.

Conclusion:

As we reflect on these decisions that impact our nation, it challenges us to pray for those that make these important decisions.  At the Christian Law Association, we are honored to stand before the courts of our land as your legal missionaries.