News Alert

Supreme Court Will Consider Whether A 40-Foot Cross Must Be Removed To Appease Atheists And Dishonor Fallen WWI Soldiers

February 26, 2019 by TMLC

February 26, 2019

ANN ARBOR, MI – On Wednesday, February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision which ordered the removal or disfigurement of a 40-foot tall cross erected in 1925 to memorialize the World War I service and death of forty-nine soldiers from Prince George County, Maryland.

The “Peace Cross of Bladensburg” located at the entrance to the town of Bladensburg, Maryland sits on a rectangular base which includes the words “Valor,” “Endurance,” “Courage,” and “Devotion.” A bronze plaque lists the names of the forty-nine fallen sons of Bladensburg. Above the names is the inscription: “This Memorial Cross Dedicated To The Heroes of Prince George’s County Maryland Who Lost Their Lives In The Great War For The Liberty Of The World.”

The Fourth Circuit ruled that the cross is the “preeminent symbol of Christianity,” and that while the cross may generally serve as a symbol of death and memorialization, it only holds that value because of its affiliation with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, engaged in the heated culture war battle over the meaning of the Establishment Clause, by filing an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) to save the Cross. The stakes are high. Crosses throughout the nation, including those in the Arlington National Cemetery, will be in jeopardy should the Supreme Court affirm the lower court decision.

This is the second amicus brief filed by TMLC. The first brief, filed in July 2018, asked the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling against the cross. Once the Supreme Court agreed to review the ruling, this second brief, filed on December 19, 2018, asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Fourth Circuit’s decision.

The federal lawsuit challenging the “peace cross” was brought in 2014 by three atheists who occasionally drove past the cross and claimed they were offended. TMLC’s brief authored by Erin Kuenzig addresses their claim by arguing,

“Allowing a historic war memorial to be destroyed to quell some momentary discomfort plaintiffs feel when they drive past the Bladensburg monument would do real and lasting harm to this country; it would send a message of disrespect to our fallen soldiers and their families, and it would deprive future generations of a treasured piece of history.”

TMLC’s brief also claims that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision shows a hostility toward religion, particularly Christianity, not intended by the Constitution.

Moreover, TMLC’s brief importantly points out,

“We cannot change the stories of the dead to appease the all too easily offended living. Any harm respondents feel they incur due to seeing the shape of a cross when they happen to drive past the Bladensburg memorial, pales in comparison to the real and lasting harm that destroying such memorials will cause to this country as a whole, to veterans’ families, and to the memories of the men and women who are honored by them.”

Clearly, use of the Latin Cross in 1925 reflected the custom in Europe during World War I where the cross became the principal grave marker in cemeteries where soldiers were buried as described in the opening lines “In Flanders Fields,” a famous poem of the time whose opening line begins “In Flanders fields the poppies blow, between the crosses, row on row.”

In this case, the purpose of the cross is to honor the dead using a historical symbol of death and sacrifice. The decision to destroy this memorial, simply because the plaintiffs claim to be offended by the memorial’s Latin cross, evidences an intolerance to Christianity that is wholly inconsistent with our nation’s history and with the purpose and meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Click here to read TMLC’s brief filed on December 19, 2018.

Click here to read TMLC’s first brief.

Thomas More Law Center Files Supreme Court Brief Defending The 40-Foot Bladensburg Peace Cross Erected Nearly A Century Ago

December 27, 2018 by TMLC

December 27, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on December 19, 2018, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of the forty-foot Bladensburg Peace Cross, erected nearly a century ago. The Cross was erected by the American Legion and the grieving mothers of the forty-nine soldiers from Prince George County, Maryland, who were killed in World War I, in commemoration of their service to the Nation.

(Algerina Perna /The Baltimore Sun via AP, File)

Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Cross must be removed or destroyed as a result of a federal lawsuit brought by three atheists who occasionally drove past the cross and claimed they were offended. Agreeing with the atheists, the Court held that the Cross violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court found that the cross is the “preeminent symbol of Christianity,” and that while the cross may generally serve as a symbol of death and memorialization, it only holds that value because of its affiliation with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

However, TMLC’s brief pointed out:

“Allowing a historic war memorial to be destroyed to quell some momentary discomfort plaintiffs feel when they drive past the Bladensburg monument would do real and lasting harm to this country; it would send a message of disrespect to our fallen soldiers and their families, and it would deprive future generations of a treasured piece of history.”

In 1920, a mother of one of the men honored by the monument, wrote in a letter to a US senator, “…the chief reason I feel so deeply in the matter my son, Wm. F. Redman lost his life in France and because of that, I feel that our memorial cross is in a way his grave stone.”

TMLC’s brief agreed:

“[T]he Bladensburg Memorial should be treated with a sense of reverence and respect that acknowledges its commemorative purpose. Much like an actual gravestone, the Bladensburg Memorial provides a visible record of the heroic deaths of the men whose names are etched into it. Preserving the memory of these men and their sacrifice was crucial to the generation that knew them.”

The Bladensburg Peace Cross stands on land at a busy intersection in Maryland and sits on a rectangular base which includes the words “Valor,” “Endurance,” “Courage,” and “Devotion.”

The Cross also contains a bronze plaque stating, “This Memorial Cross Dedicated to the Heroes of Prince George’s County, Maryland Who Lost Their Lives in the Great War for the Liberty of the World.” The plaque also includes the names of the forty-nine soldiers memorialized by the monument and a poignant quote from President Woodrow Wilson: “The right is more precious than the peace. We shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts. To such a task we dedicate our lives.”

Clearly, the use of the Cross reflected the custom in Europe during World War I where the cross became the principal grave marker in cemeteries where soldiers were buried as described in the opening lines “In Flanders Fields,” a famous poem of the time whose opening line begins “In Flanders fields the poppies blow, between the crosses, row on row.”

TMLC claims that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision ordering the removal or destruction of the Bladensburg Cross simply because it is a religious symbol of Christianity, shows a hostility toward religion, particularly Christianity, not intended by the Constitution, and puts at risk hundreds of memorials with similar symbols including those at Arlington National Cemetery where crosses of comparable size commemorate America’s fallen soldiers.

According to TMLC’s brief:

“We cannot change the stories of the dead to appease the all too easily offended living. Any harm respondents feel they incur due to seeing the shape of a cross when they happen to drive past the Bladensburg memorial, pales in comparison to the real and lasting harm that destroying such memorials will cause to this country as a whole, to veterans’ families, and to the memories of the men and women who are honored by them.”

TMLC writes, that in this case, the primary purpose of the Latin cross is to honor the dead using a historical symbol of death and sacrifice. The decision to destroy this memorial, simply because the plaintiffs claim to be offended by the memorial’s Latin cross, evidences an intolerance to Christianity that is wholly inconsistent with our nation’s history and with the purpose and meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

TMLC seeks to preserve the Bladensburg memorial to respect the decision of the bereaved parents, who nearly a century ago chose to honor their deceased children with the monument as it currently stands.

Click here to read TMLC’s entire brief.

Thomas More Law Center Files Supreme Court Brief In Last-Ditch Effort To Save The Bladensburg Cross Erected Over 90 Years Ago

July 30, 2018 by TMLC

July 30, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, last Friday, June 27, filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, in a last-ditch effort to save the forty-foot Bladensburg Cross, erected over ninety years ago. The Cross was erected by the American Legion and the grieving mothers of the forty-nine soldiers from Prince George County, Maryland, who were killed in World War I, in commemoration of the soldiers’ service to the Nation.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling suggested that the Cross must be destroyed, or some other arrangement made to avoid a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The forty-foot Cross, which now stands on land at a busy intersection in Maryland, was erected in the 1920s. The Cross sits on a rectangular base which includes the words “Valor,” “Endurance,” “Courage,” and “Devotion.” The Cross also contains a bronze plaque stating, “This Memorial Cross Dedicated to the Heroes of Prince George’s County, Maryland Who Lost Their Lives in the Great War for the Liberty of the World.” The plaque includes the names of the forty-nine soldiers memorialized by the monument and a poignant quote from President Woodrow Wilson: “The right is more precious than peace. We shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts. To such a task we dedicate our lives.”

The use of the Cross reflected the custom in Europe during World War I where the cross became the principal grave marker in cemeteries where soldiers were buried, as described in the opening lines “In Flanders Fields,” a famous poem of the time whose opening lines begin “In Flanders fields the poppies blow, Between the crosses, row on row.”

The Bladensburg Cross now stands in Veterans Memorial Park and is surrounded by numerous other monuments erected over the years commemorating those who died in our Nation’s conflicts.

Nevertheless, the Fourth Circuit based its decision that the Bladensburg Cross was in violation of the Establishment Clause on its finding that the cross is the “preeminent symbol of Christianity,” and that while a cross may generally serve as a symbol of death and memorialization, it only holds that value because of its affiliation with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

TMLC claims that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision ordering the removal or destruction of the Bladensburg Cross simply because it is a religious symbol of Christianity, shows a hostility toward religion, particularly Christianity, not intended by the Constitution, and puts at risk hundreds of memorials with similar symbols including those at Arlington Cemetery where crosses of comparable size commemorate America’s fallen soldiers.

According to TMLC’s brief:

“We cannot change the stories of the dead to appease the all too easily offended living. Any harm respondents feel they incur due to seeing the shape of a cross when they happen to drive past the Bladensburg memorial, pales in comparison to the real and lasting harm that destroying such memorials will cause to this country as a whole, to veterans’ families, and to the memories of the men and women who are honored by them.”

TMLC writes, that in this case, the primary purpose of the Latin cross is to honor the dead using a historical symbol of death and sacrifice. The decision to destroy this memorial, simply because the plaintiffs claim to be offended by the memorial’s use of the Latin cross, evidences an intolerance to Christianity that is wholly inconsistent with our nation’s history and with the purpose and meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

TMLC stands with The American Legion and its fight to preserve the Bladensburg memorial to respect the decision of the bereaved parents, who nearly a century ago chose to honor their deceased children with the monument as it currently stands.

Click here to read TMLC’s entire brief.

Thomas More Law Center Defeats New York Attorney General’s Ballyhooed Attempt To Silence Pro-Life Sidewalk Counselors

July 23, 2018 by TMLC

July 23, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has won a significant legal battle on behalf of Christian pro-life sidewalk counselors sued in a New York federal district court by the New York Attorney General’s Office (“OAG”). In a 103-page opinion issued last Friday evening, U.S. District Judge Carol Bagley Amon rebuked the efforts of the New York Attorney General’s Office to silence sidewalk counselors who regularly assembled outside of Choices Women’s Medical Center (“Choices”), a Queens abortion clinic, to plead for the lives of the unborn.

Last summer, June 20, 2017, at a much-ballyhooed press conference held outside Choices, then-Attorney General of New York Eric Schneiderman (who later resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct), concluding a massive year-long investigation, announced his federal lawsuit against thirteen sidewalk counselors with the astonishing remark that this is “not a nation where you can choose your point of view.”

TMLC attorneys Tyler Brooks and Kate Oliveri represent two of the thirteen counselors sued by OAG, Angela Braxton and Jasmine Lalande.

Tyler Brooks commented, “A radical state attorney general abandoned his duty to enforce the law fairly in favor of pursuing an ideological campaign intended to silence pro-life Christians. The federal court, however, has seen through the State of New York’s efforts and made clear that the free speech of Christians will not be censored simply because some people on the left do not like it.”

Kate Oliveri added, “In denying the State’s preliminary injunction motion, the district court judge protected the true victims of harassment: the pro-life sidewalk counselors. Judge Amon sent a clear message to the New York Attorney General’s Office that the First Amendment does indeed guarantee the right of citizens in New York to have their own viewpoint.”

Richard Thompson, TMLC President and Chief Counsel praised the great cooperation between TMLC attorneys and attorneys associated with the Thomas More Society and Liberty Counsel, who represented the other Defendants.

In its lawsuit, OAG alleged that the thirteen sidewalk counselors violated federal, state and New York City laws prohibiting the obstruction of abortion facilities, and harassment and intimidation of women who were seeking abortions. It petitioned the federal court to create a sixteen-foot buffer zone around Choices abortion premises and levy fines, attorney fees and compensatory damages against the Defendants.

An extensive preliminary injunction hearing was held between February 12 and March 6, 2018. In addition to videos, photographs and other documentary evidence, OAG called seven witnesses and the Defendants called ten witnesses. On May 22, 2018, Judge Amon heard oral arguments on OAG’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In her 103-page opinion and order, Judge Amon denied the OAG’s motion finding that the OAG had failed to substantiate any of its allegations against the Defendants.

For years, Choices has had security cameras trained on its entrance. And in June 2016, the OAG installed a high-mounted surveillance camera to capture the exterior of Choices’ main patient entrance surrounding sidewalk. Moreover, OAG investigators obtained additional video evidence in undercover operations where they approached Choices, pretending to be patients and their companions, while wearing hidden cameras recording video and audio.

Despite these investigative activities, Judge Amon found that not a single video introduced into evidence substantiated the OAG’s allegations against the sidewalk counselors.

The Court also heard testimony from several Choices employees and escorts, including Merle Hoffman, the owner of Choices who proudly accepts the title “Millionaire Abortionist” and who has said that pro-life advocates should be considered the “American Taliban.” Judge Amon found the witnesses produced by the OAG were not credible.

OAG can appeal Judge Amon’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. However, the appellate court is required to defer to the findings of fact made by Judge Amon, making any such appeal very difficult for the State.

Click here to read the Court’s opinion.

Thomas More Law Center Asks Federal Court To Stop LGBT Groups From Harassing The Center For Military Readiness

July 18, 2018 by TMLC

July 18, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, has taken legal action to stop the ongoing intimidation and harassment of groups opposed to transgenders serving in the military. Yesterday, TMLC filed a motion on behalf of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR) in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to stop an effort by LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) activist groups and transgender individuals to compel compliance with a staggering subpoena for the production of documents served on CMR on May 3, 2018.

Kate Oliveri, TMLC Trial Counsel and the principal attorney representing CMR, stated: “This intrusive subpoena seeks information irrelevant to the underling case in which CMR has no part. It is an example of those pushing identity politics attempting to bully and silence any opposition through an abuse of the legal process.”

The subpoena controversy arises out of a federal lawsuit, Ryan Karnoski, et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al., filed in a Federal District Court located in the State of Washington, by several transgender individuals and major national LGBT activist groups to stop enforcement of President Trump’s August 2017 ban on transgenders serving in the military. CMR is not a party in that lawsuit and did not have any official or unofficial role in developing or implementing President Trump’s transgender ban.

Nevertheless, the LGBT-Plaintiffs served a broad-ranging subpoena on CMR located in Michigan, commanding it to search all its records and electronic files for documents and communications generated in the past 36 months, from June 16, 2015 (the day Trump announced his candidacy) to the present, between CMR and the President, Vice President and the Defense Department, relating to public policy on transgenders in military service or transgender people in general. Plaintiffs hope to uncover proof that President Trump’s order banning transgenders from serving in the military was motivated by “animus against transgenders” communicated to him by non-party groups like CMR and others.

The LGBT-Plaintiffs filed the motion to compel production of the alleged documents after CMR filed written objections to their subpoena.

Click here to read TMLC’s opposition to LGBT motion to compel production.

Elaine Donnelly is the President of the Center for Military Readiness which she founded in 1993. CMR is an independent, non-partisan, public policy organization that promotes sound principles of unit cohesion, mission readiness, and combat lethality. Donnelly believes that policies should be based on empirical evidence derived from actual experience, not sociological theories and misguided political goals.

Commenting on the LBGT motion to compel production, Donnelly stated: “Their subpoena seeks to violate our First Amendment right to free speech, and to punish CMR for engaging in public policy discussions as an independent source of information and analysis. CMR refuses to be intimidated, silenced or deterred from our mission.”

Donnelly added, “Equal opportunity is important, but if there is a conflict between career considerations and military necessity, the needs of the military and the nation must come first.”

There is a concerted national effort by LGBT activist organizations to overturn President Trump’s ban on transgenders serving in the military. Federal lawsuits challenging the ban have been filed against President Trump in the states of Washington, California, Maryland and in Washington D.C. Three subpoenas were served on CMR, two emanating out of the Washington D.C. case, and one out of the State of Washington case. CMR filed written objections to all three subpoenas. However, a motion to compel CMR to produce the documents was filed only in the State of Washington case.

The demands on CMR to comply with the Subpoena are staggering:

All Documents and Communications from the Relevant Period between CMR and President Trump, the Executive Office of the President, the Trump Campaign, Vice President Pence, the Office of the Vice President, or the Department of Defense, concerning military service by transgender people, public policy regarding transgender people, medical treatment for transgender people, and/or transgender people in general.

According to the Plaintiffs, the definition of the word “communication” means: any transmission by one or more persons to one or more persons by any means including, without limitation, telephone conversations, letters, telegrams, teletypes, telexes, telecopies, e-mail, text messages, computer linkups, written memoranda, and face-to-face conversations; “communication” includes all documents and electronically stored information (“ESI”) containing, summarizing, or memorializing any communication.

CMR opposes the LBGT-Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery on the grounds that such discovery is irrelevant and out of proportion to the needs of Plaintiffs’ case, imposes an undue burden on CMR, and infringes on CMR’s First Amendment Rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Thomas More Law Center Files Opening Brief On Behalf Of Tennessee Challenging The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program

July 5, 2018 by TMLC

July 5, 2018

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on Monday, July 2, 2018, filed its opening appellate brief in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Tennessee challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program.

The Thomas More Law Center represents all the plaintiffs in the appeal: The State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and two individual legislators, Senator John Stevens and Representative Terri Lynn Weaver. TMLC originally filed its lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in a Tennessee federal district court against various federal departments and federal officials on the grounds that implementation of the federal refugee resettlement program violated the Tenth Amendment’s state sovereignty principles and the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution.

The lawsuit sought to permanently ban the federal government from forcing Tennessee to fund the federal refugee resettlement program out of its own treasury. However, a federal district court judge dismissed the case on March 19, 2018. TMLC’s appeal seeks to reverse the court’s ruling.

Kate Oliveri, a TMLC attorney who co-authored the appellate brief, commented, “The federal government is forcing the tax-paying citizens of Tennessee to fund the federal refugee resettlement program despite their elected state officials withdrawing from the program. The federal district court erred, not only in allowing this usurpation of state funds, but also by holding that the General Assembly cannot bring a lawsuit to defend against any usurpation of its power.”

When Congress enacted the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980, the explicit intent was to assure full federal reimbursement of the costs for each refugee resettled and participating in benefit programs provided by the states. Eventually, federal reimbursements to the states for these benefit programs were reduced and, by 1991, entirely eliminated. As a result, the states became responsible for the immense costs of the programs originally covered by the federal government.

Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the refugee resettlement program in 2007. However, instead of honoring Tennessee’s decision to withdraw from the program, the federal government merely bypassed the State and appointed Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a private, non-governmental organization to administer the program. Catholic Charities receives revenue based upon the number of refugees it brings into the State.

In their brief, the Tennessee-plaintiffs made clear they are not claiming any authority to regulate immigration or to discriminate against refugees or any other category of immigrants. They do contend, however, that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the federal government from commandeering state funds to support the federal government in its implementation of federal immigration and naturalization law.

The fact that the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government authority over immigration and naturalization, does not give it the right to violate the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment state sovereignty principles or the Spending Clause.

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel, stated, “This case involves critical constitutional issues regarding the appropriate balance between the powers of the federal government and the states. Our lawsuit and appeal focuses solely on the unconstitutional manner in which the federal program is currently operating in the State of Tennessee. The district court decision dismissing this case conflicts with several U.S. Supreme Court opinions upholding state sovereignty against overreach by the federal government. The purpose of this lawsuit is to preserve the balanced constitutional relationship between the Federal government and the States as intended by our Founding Fathers, and which is so crucial to our individual liberties.”

Click here to read TMLC’s brief.