Salazar v. Buono
Citations
- 559 U.S. 700
- 130 S. Ct. 1803
- 176 L. Ed. 2d 634
- 2010 U.S. LEXIS 3674
About this case
Salazar v. Buono
Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution . The case concerned the legality of the Mojave Memorial Cross , a Latin cross which was placed atop a prominent rock outcropping by the Veterans of Foreign Wars foundation in 1934 to honor war dead. The location is known as "Sunrise Rock" in the Mojave National Preserve in San Bernardino County in southeastern California . The Supreme Court ruled that the cross may stay, but also sent the case back to a lower court, making the issue currently unresolved.[1]
Contents
Background
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
The cross
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: The cross")
Main article: Mojave Memorial Cross
Currently, there is a cross atop Sunrise Rock that is between 5 and 8 feet (1.5 and 2.4 m) tall and is constructed out of 4-inch-diameter (100 mm) metal pipes painted white. Historical records reflect that a wooden cross was built on that location as early as 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars as a memorial to veterans who died in World War I . Photographs depict the wooden cross and signs near it stating: “The Cross, Erected in Memory of the Dead of All Wars,” and “Erected 1934 by Members of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Joshua Tree post 2884.” The wooden signs are no longer present, and the original wooden cross, which is no longer standing, has been replaced by private parties several times since 1934. The cross has been an intermittent gathering place for Easter religious services since as early as 1935, and regularly since 1984. The current version of the cross was built by Henry Sandoz, a local resident, sometime in 1998. When the National Park Service (NPS) investigated the history of the cross, Sandoz explained that he drilled holes into Sunrise Rock to bolt the cross in place, making it difficult to remove. Sandoz did not receive a permit from NPS to construct the cross. No sign indicates that the cross was or is intended to act as a memorial for war veterans.
Action by the National Park Service and Congress
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Action by the National Park Service and Congress")
In 1999, NPS received a request from an individual seeking to build a stupa (a dome-shaped Buddhist shrine) on a rock outcropping at a trailhead located near the cross. NPS denied that request, citing 36 C.F.R. § 2.62(a)[2] as prohibiting the installation of a memorial without authorization. A handwritten note on the denial letter warned that “[a]ny attempt to erect a stupa will be in violation of Federal Law and subject you to citation and/or arrest.” The letter also indicates that “[c]urrently there is a cross on [a] rock outcrop located on National Park Service lands. . . . It is our intention to have the cross removed.”
In 1999, NPS undertook a study of the history of the cross. NPS determined that neither the cross nor the property on which it is situated qualifies for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places . Specifically, NPS recognized that the cross itself “has been replaced many times and the plaque that once accompanied it (even though it is not known if it is original) has been removed.” Also, the property does not qualify as an historical site because, among other things, “the site is used for religious purposes as well as commemoration.” Following the announcement by NPS of its intention to remove the cross, the United States Congress passed a series of laws to preserve the Sunrise Rock cross. The first piece of legislation, enacted in December 2000, provided that no government funds could be used to remove the cross.[3]
Lawsuit and injunction
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: Lawsuit and injunction")
Frank Buono, a former NPS employee, filed suit in March 2001 against the Secretary of the Department of the Interior , the Regional Director of NPS, and the Superintendent of the Preserve. The district court concluded that the presence of the cross in the Preserve violates the Establishment Clause .[4] In July 2002, the court entered a permanent injunction ordering that the “Defendants, their employees, agents, and those in active concert with Defendants, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from permitting display of the Latin cross in the area of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve.”
Further congressional action
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono&action=edit§ion=5 "Edit section: Further congressional action")
In January 2002, while this matter was pending in district court, Congress passed a defense appropriations bill, which included a section designating the Sunrise Rock cross as a “national memorial.”[5]
In October 2002, less than three months after the district court's injunction, in legislation aimed at the Sunrise Rock cross, Congress passed a defense appropriations bill that included a provision barring the use of federal funds “to dismantle national memorials commemorating United States participation in World War I.”[6]
In September 2003 Congress enacted another defense appropriations bill that included a land exchange agreement regarding the Sunrise Rock cross in which an acre of land containing the cross was conveyed to the Veterans Home of California— Barstow, Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #385E in consideration for 5 acres (2.0 ha) of land.[7] The government retained a reversionary interest in the property subject to a condition that the recipient maintain the conveyed property as a memorial commemorating United States participation in World War I and honoring the American veterans of that war.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salazar_v._Buono&action=edit§ion=6 "Edit section: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decisions")
In June 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's permanent injunction, holding that the presence of the cross in the Preserve violates the Establishment Clause.[8] Despite the injunction against display of the cross in the Preserve, the government began moving forward with the mechanics of the land exchange under § 8121. Buono moved to enforce the district court's prior injunction, or modify it to prohibit the land exchange as a violation of the Establishment Clause. In April 2005, the district court granted Buono's motion to enforce the injunction, and denied as moot the request to amend the permanent injunction.[9] According to the district court, “the transfer of the Preserve land containing the Latin Cross which as [a] sectarian war memorial carries an inherently religious message and creates an appearance of honoring only those servicemen of that particular religion is an attempt by the government to evade the permanent injunction enjoining the display of the Latin Cross atop Sunrise Rock.”[10] The district court deemed the exchange “invalid” and permanently enjoined the government “from implementing the provisions of Section 8121 of Public Law 108-87” and ordered the government “to comply forthwith with the judgment and permanent injunction entered by th[e] court on July 24, 2002.”[10] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[11] The United States Supreme Court then granted the government's petition for a writ of certiorari .
United States Supreme Court ruling
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salazar_v._
…
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a non-party to a judgment has no standing to enforce the judgment or seek its vindication
- observing that failure to seek review rendered a judgment “final and unreviewable”
- assuming that “reasonable observer” test applied
- “A court must find prospective relief that fits the remedy to the wrong or injury that has been established.”
- “[I]t was incumbent upon the District Court to consider less drastic re- lief than complete invalidation of the … statute.”
- Bryer, J., dissenting, but noting agreement with plurality that Buono had standing to seek enforcement of the injunction
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Auto, Scalia, Thomas, Stevens, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
117 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Department of Homeland Security v. ThuraissigiamSupreme Court· 2020-06-25· cited 639×
- Doe v. ReedSupreme Court· 2010-06-24· cited 410×
- Town of Greece v. GallowaySupreme Court· 2014-05-05· cited 234×
- KG Urban Enterprises, LLC v. PatrickFirst Circuit· 2012-08-01· cited 213×
- Gooch v. Life Investors Insurance Co. of AmericaSixth Circuit· 2012-02-10· cited 195×
- Linc Government Services, LLC v. United StatesFederal Claims· 2010-11-05· cited 159×
- Newdow v. RobertsD.C. Circuit· 2010-05-07· cited 129×
- Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. FDASixth Circuit· 2021-09-09· cited 100×
- Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of San FranciscoNinth Circuit· 2010-10-22· cited 83×
- International Refugee Assistance Project v. TrumpFourth Circuit· 2017-05-25· cited 83×
- Trump v. CASA, Inc.Supreme Court· 2025-06-27· cited 83×
- Collegiate Licensing Company v. American Casualty Co. of Reading PennsylvaniaEleventh Circuit· 2013-03-21· cited 75×
- Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation SocietyNinth Circuit· 2014-12-19· cited 75×
- Acheson Hotels, LLC v. LauferSupreme Court· 2023-12-05· cited 71×
- Missourians for Fiscal Accountability v. KlahrEighth Circuit· 2016-07-29· cited 69×
- Trunk v. City of San DiegoNinth Circuit· 2011-01-04· cited 65×
- Heffner v. MurphyThird Circuit· 2014-02-19· cited 61×
- John Doe v. Elmbrook School DistSeventh Circuit· 2012-07-23· cited 56×
- Torres v. ElkinCourt of Appeals of Georgia· 2012-07-12· cited 56×
- American Atheists, Inc. v. DavenportTenth Circuit· 2010-12-20· cited 54×
Cites
51 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court· 1998-03-04· cited 10,096×
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court· 1983-04-20· cited 5,797×
- Allen v. WrightSupreme Court· 1984-09-18· cited 4,763×
- Quern v. JordanSupreme Court· 1979-03-05· cited 4,123×
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court· 1974-07-24· cited 4,095×
- Lemon v. KurtzmanSupreme Court· 1971-10-12· cited 3,142×
- Summers v. Earth Island InstituteSupreme Court· 2009-03-03· cited 2,335×
- Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla.Supreme Court· 1982-06-21· cited 1,854×
- Weinberger v. Romero-BarceloSupreme Court· 1982-04-27· cited 1,831×
- Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court· 2010-01-21· cited 1,732×
- United States v. MorrisonSupreme Court· 2000-05-15· cited 1,467×
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.Supreme Court· 1906-02-19· cited 1,300×
- Lynch v. DonnellySupreme Court· 1984-03-05· cited 1,263×
- Hecht Co. v. BowlesSupreme Court· 1944-02-28· cited 1,232×
- United States v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court· 1932-05-02· cited 1,171×
- County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties UnionSupreme Court· 1989-07-03· cited 1,111×
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.Supreme Court· 1995-04-18· cited 1,015×
- Lee v. WeismanSupreme Court· 1992-06-24· cited 967×
- Knowles v. IowaSupreme Court· 1998-12-08· cited 800×
- Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.Supreme Court· 1994-06-30· cited 780×
Other cases named Salazar v. Buono
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.