Uncategorized

Supreme Court Ratchets Up Hostility To Religion in Ten Commandments Cases; Political Solution Sought
Mon, Jun 27, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national pubic interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today’s United States Supreme Court rulings in the two Ten Commandment cases, one from Kentucky and the other from Texas, will have the practical effect of discouraging some public entities from displaying religious symbols.

Said Thompson, “Justice Scalia got it right. These decisions do not rest on consistently applied principles of law. Thus, the Court announced no rule of law, which government entities can depend upon that will give them any reasonable certainty they are complying with the requirements of the Establishment Clause. Consequently, some local governments will decide not to take a chance and be forced to pay monstrous attorney fee awards to organizations like the ACLU if they lose. One political solution is to remove the statutory attorney fee awards to the prevailing party in these kinds of cases.” “However, I am certain of one thing,” said Thompson, “ this battle is far from over.”

The Thomas More Law Center filed friend of the court briefs in favor of the Ten Commandment displays in both McCreary County v. ACLU and Van Orden v. Perry. In its 5 to 4 decision issued today in the McCreary case, the Supreme Court ruled that the displays of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Both displays originally included only framed copies of the Ten Commandments. After the ACLU sued to remove the displays, the two counties supplemented the framed copies of the Commandments with eleven historical documents, including the Mayflower Compact and the Bill of Rights, calling the new displays the “Foundations of American Law and Government.” The additional documents were chosen because, like the Ten Commandments, they played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government.

Despite the additions, a federal trial judge struck down the “Foundations” display because it included the Ten Commandments. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the trial judge, holding that the original display, which had only included the Ten Commandments, “unconstitutionally tainted” the subsequent “Foundations” display, making them unconstitutional as well. A sharply divided Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Kentucky counties had not sufficiently distanced themselves from any religious purpose in the first displays.

The four dissenting justices (Justices Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Thomas) criticized the majority’s decision and the majority’s application of the so-called Lemon test, which the dissenters explained can be manipulated to fit whatever result the Court wants to achieve. They noted that even if a government could show that its actual purpose in displaying the Ten Commandments was not to advance religion, the display could still be struck down if the Court’s imaginary “objective observer” would conclude that the government officials intended to advance religion. The dissenters explained that the majority’s new use of the Lemon test has ratcheted up the Court’s hostility to religion.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel commented: “As the four dissenting justices explained, the five majority justices have ratcheted up the Supreme Court’s hostility to religion in this case. The use of the faulty Lemon test by courts is a way to silence religion in this country. Courts, as the dissenters noted, can use the Lemon test to find a religious purpose when none was intended by the government.”

Edward L. White III, trial counsel with the Law Center, explained that “Although the Court ruled against the displays in the two Kentucky counties based on the unique facts of the case, the Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling across the board that the Ten Commandments or other sacred texts cannot be displayed as part of a government display on the subject of law or American history. As such, government can continue to include the Ten Commandments in displays on public property.”

The Supreme Court upheld the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds in the Van Orden case. The monument had stood on government grounds for more than forty years. A few years ago, Thomas Van Orden, a former criminal defense attorney who became homeless, filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Texas challenging the granite monument on which the Ten Commandments were etched. In his lawsuit, Van Orden argued that the appearance of the Ten Commandments monument on government property violated the First Amendment.

Both the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against Van Orden, upholding the display of the Ten Commandments as constitutional. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Texas State Capitol Building contains a wide array of monuments, plaques, and seals depicting both the secular and religious history of Texas. They include a tribute to African American legislators, a plaque commemorating the war with Mexico, a statue of a pioneer woman holding a child in tribute to the role of women in Texas history, and a tribute to the Texans lost at Pearl Harbor. The six foot tall Ten Commandments monument was a gift of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, accepted by a joint resolution of the House and Senate in early 1961.

In the decision issued today, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, with a concurrence by Justice Breyer, ruled that the display of the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds was constitutional. In reaching its ruling, however, the Court was fractured with regard to what analysis it should apply to decide such cases. Thus, the Supreme Court has provided little guidance for government entities to follow in erecting displays of the Ten Commandments that will pass constitutional muster.

The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases involving the defense of the Ten Commandments, including two victories last year in defeating separate efforts to remove displays of the Commandments from the cities of Pleasant Grove and Duchesne, Utah.

 

Law Center Defends Louisiana School Board’s Right to Begin Meetings with Prayer
Wed, Jun 22, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has submitted a friend of the court brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting the constitutional right of the Tangipahoa Parish School Board in Louisiana to open its meetings with prayers that invoke Divine guidance referencing “God,” Heavenly Father,” and “Jesus.”

A federal district judge had earlier ruled that such prayers by the school board violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

For more than thirty years, the School Board has opened each meeting with an invocation followed by the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The School Board imposes no restriction on any religious viewpoint, and any person who wants to deliver the invocation may do so regardless of his religious beliefs.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center stated, “This is just another example of the concerted effort to destroy the religious foundations of our nation.” Continued Thompson, “Acknowledging beliefs that are widely held among the American people is not a violation of the Constitution.”

In 2003, a parent of two high school students in the School District filed a lawsuit claiming the invocations were unconstitutional. Although the trial judge recognized that it is constitutional for legislative or deliberative bodies to begin their meetings with prayer, she ruled that this well-established legal principle did not apply to the School Board, even though the School Board is a deliberative body under Louisiana law, its meetings are held separately from classroom and school-related activities, and students are not required to attend the meetings.

In its brief, the Thomas More Law Center pointed out that sessions of the U. S. House of Representatives begin with prayers making reference to “God,” “Heavenly Father,” and “Jesus,” offer thanksgiving, and seek wisdom, guidance, forgiveness, and protection. The prayers opening the Tangipahoa Parish School Board meetings are not different in any material respect.

According to Edward L. White III, an attorney with the Law Center who drafted the brief, “The prayers said to start Tangipahoa Parish School Board meetings are as Constitutional as those said to start any other meeting of a legislative or deliberative body, including the House of Representatives. It is a deeply embedded part of the history and tradition of this country for deliberative bodies to open their sessions with prayer.”

 

New York Student Sues High School for Prohibiting Pro-Life Shirt
Tue, May 10, 2005

Ann Arbor, MI—A junior at Fillmore Central High School near Buffalo, New York, has filed a federal lawsuit against his school district for forcing him to remove his pro-life shirt in violation of his free-speech rights. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the American Catholic Lawyers Association are representing the student.

In October 2004, Kevin Dibble wore a shirt expressing his view that abortion is wrong. The shirt displayed the following message: “Abortion is Homicide. You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.”

Despite the fact that Dibble had worn the same shirt on a number of previous occasions, the school principal Kyle Faulkner informed him that the message was offensive and wearing the shirt was prohibited. When Dibble asserted his constitutional rights, he was suspended for the day.

Before filing the lawsuit, the Thomas More Law Center sent a letter to school officials explaining Kevin Dibble’s First Amendment right to peacefully express his pro-life views on his clothing at school. The Law Center also pointed to the double standard of school officials not allowing Kevin’s message but allowing other students to wear controversial shirts that depict grotesque pictures and sexually charged messages. In response to the letter, school officials again denied Kevin his right to wear his shirt to school.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “This is another example of a school taking sides in the abortion issue and attempting to silence a student’s message because it disagrees with it. ”

According to Julie Shotzbarger, Associate Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, “We handle these cases across the country at no charge because we believe in the pro-life message advanced by these students, and that they have a constitutional right to express that message.”

 

Christian National Day of Prayer Event In Front of Troy City Hall Finally Approved After Thomas More Law Center Enters Fray
Tue, Apr 26, 2005

Troy, MI — The Troy City Council finally approved a Christian group’s application to hold their National Day of Prayer event in front of City Hall after the Thomas More Law Center stepped in on behalf of the group to end months of political maneuverings, contentious hearings and opposition from non-Christians.

Christians have been sponsoring a National Day of Prayer event in front of City Hall for the past ten years. Yet, when this year’s application was submitted by the Troy National Day of Prayer Christian Task Force, city administrators attempted to force them to make it an interfaith event. Without notifying the Task Force coordinator Lori Wagner, the application was altered and placed on the Council’s agenda. When Wagner discovered the change she immediately asked that the altered application be removed and the original resubmitted. The Council subsequently rejected the resubmitted application.

Christians encouraged and supported separate events for other faith groups on the same day and place, but at different times. Nevertheless, they wanted their own Christian event, as they had for the previous ten years. It was evident that some city officials were trying to force Christians to change their message by refusing to grant them a permit unless they allowed prayers from people of different religions.

“Some politicians on the council wanted to dilute the Christian message under the pretext of diversity,” commented Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center. “However, Christian persistence overcame their political maneuverings and opposition from interfaith advocates. We won this battle, but I am concerned there will be future attempts to stop Christians from celebrating this event, and we must stay vigilant and be ready to challenge those efforts in court,” he added.

Added Wagner, “I realized that efforts to force us to compromise what we wanted for our private event in order to have access to public property was unconstitutional. Certainly people of other faiths are welcome to attend, but we want this to be a Christian event with Christian prayer as it has been for the previous ten years.”

She continued, “We support the efforts of all groups to conduct their own events in front of City Hall. Initially, the interfaith representatives didn’t want to do that; however, they later agreed and so did the council. Council passed a resolution on March 28 granting both the Christian and interfaith groups different times for their distinct NDP events. After remarking that this was acceptable, the interfaith group later withdrew their application and continued their attempts to persuade the Council to deny ours.”

The Thomas More Law Center was asked to represent the Task Force after the Council’s initial rejection of their application. Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s Chief Counsel, addressed a special session of the council and explained it was unconstitutional for government to force a group to promote a message, in this case non-Christian prayers, it did not want. As a result, the Council unanimously voted to approve the application. However, a week later, under pressure from interfaith representatives, the Council rescinded its approval.

The following week, April 18, NDP Task Force members addressed the council and again a lawyer from the Law Center, Edward L. White III, was on hand to explain the constitutional right of Christians to hold their own prayer event in front of City Hall. This time the Council approved the application, 4 to 3. Thus, barring another change of heart by the city council, the Troy National Day of Prayer Christian Task Force will hold their event on May 5th at noon, at the Veteran’s Plaza in front of Troy City Hall.

National days of prayer have been called as early as 1775 with the First Continental Congress. Abraham Lincoln called for such a day in 1863. In 1952 Congress established a National Day of Prayer by joint resolution, which was signed into law by President Truman and later amended by President Regan.

The Troy National Day of Prayer Christian Task Force is a local arm of the national group, National Day of Prayer Task Force, headed by Shirley Dobson, wife of nationally renowned founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, Jim Dobson.

 

Lawsuit Threatened Over School Superintendent’s Confiscation of Science Books on Intelligent Design And Order That Teachers Teach Evolution as A Fact
Thu, Apr 21, 2005

Ann Arbor, MI – A simmering yearlong dispute over the Gull Lake Community School District superintendent’s order that seventh grade science teachers teach Darwin’s theory of evolution and his confiscation of thirty copies of the book Of Pandas and People, which the teachers had been using for the past two years as a supplemental text supporting the theory of intelligent design, may soon end up in a federal court.

For the past two years, science teachers, Dawn Wendzel and Julie Olson, have been spending part of their classroom instruction teaching the theory of Intelligent Design alongside the theory of evolution. However, this past Fall they were told that they could no longer teach intelligent design, they could not teach the controversy between the theory of evolution and intelligent design and that they could only teach the scientific evidence for evolution.

The Theory of Intelligent Design, accepted by a growing number of credible scientists, holds that “intelligent causes” are necessary to explain the complex information- rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on April 14, 2004, sent a six-page letter to the school board asking that the books be returned to the classrooms and that the teachers be allowed to teach the theory of intelligent design as they had been. The school board has been given fourteen days to respond.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “This may turn into the Scopes Monkey trial in reverse. Now that Darwinism has achieved dominance, it is being forced on all teachers regardless of gaps in the theory or the scientific evidence to the contrary. The actions of the Gull Lake superintendent not only violates the academic freedom of teachers to teach their subject, but also the freedom of their students to receive important information on the growing controversy surrounding the theory of evolution. Confiscation of the books the superintendent doesn’t like smacks of “book burning.”

Continued Thompson, “This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science.”

Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin was not privy to in the 1850’s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells – the fundamental unit of life- possess the ability to store, edit, transmit and use information so as to regulate biological systems. This suggests that the theory of intelligent design offers the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.

The Thomas More Law Center is already defending a Dover, PA school district, which adopted a policy to make students aware of Intelligent Design, against an ACLU lawsuit.

 

Pope Benedict XVI Provides Great Hope For Christian Americans Fighting the Culture War
Wed, Apr 20, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — Thomas More Law Center President and Chief Counsel Richard Thompson commented on yesterday’s election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope John Paul II’s successor, “Orthodox Catholics as well as all people of faith engaged in America’s Culture War, have great reason to celebrate. He is a clear trumpet sound leading us into the battle to restore the religious and moral values upon which our great nation was founded.”

Cardinal Ratzinger is known throughout the Church as a moral hardliner on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and religious freedom. The selection of Ratzinger as Pope sends a clear and unequivocal message to the world of the Church’s intent on building upon the “culture of life” laid down by his predecessor John Paul II.

In his Pre-Conclave homily on Monday, he warned the Cardinals about the dangers of the theology of no absolute truths. He said, “We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.”

Added Thompson “Certainly in an age of ever growing hostility towards religion he is not a Pope likely to idly stand by and watch the moral fabric of our society be destroyed. The “culture of life” once again has a new and great champion.”

Pope John Paul II – Rest in Peace
Sat, Apr 2, 2005

The Thomas More Law Center joins all people of faith throughout the world in marking the death of Pope John Paul II. The news of the passing of the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church is a cause for both mourning and celebration.

His remarkable life truly represents one of the most profound in modern human history – calling all people to a life of prayer, holiness and dedication to Jesus Christ in the midst of a fallen world.

He warned not only Catholics, but all people of good will, of the “enormous and dramatic clash” between the culture of life and the culture of death, between good and evil. As a champion of life, he boldly proclaimed the responsibility of all people to build communities of faith and respect for the inherent dignity of every human being. He was one of the principal architects of the defeat of communism. He spoke out against abuses of the human person and rejected the selfishness of the west manifested in abortion, homosexuality, and the destructive forces of materialism and secularism. He once stated, “A nation that kills its own children has no future.”

The third longest reigning Pope, elected on October 16, 1978, he faithfully protected the traditions and doctrines of the Catholic Church, defending them with intellectual vigor and pastoral discernment.

Pope John Paul II transcended national and religious boundaries by calling all people to a life of faith and hope. He will forever be remembered by the first words of his pontificate – “Be Not Afraid!”

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon him.

 

Law Center Defends Boy Scouts’ Right to Express Traditional Moral Values Against ACLU Lawsuit
Mon, Mar 21, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI — According to the Scout Oath, a Boy Scout promises to “do my duty to God.” Moreover, Scout rules provide, “A Scout is reverent. He is faithful in his religious duties; he respects the beliefs of others.” Because of these Scouting principles, the ACLU was successful in getting a federal district judge in San Diego, CA to prohibit the Scouts from leasing parkland they had been using for nearly nine decades. The Scouts have appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Thomas More Law Center has filed a friend of the court brief in support of the Boy Scouts, arguing that the lower court’s decision plainly undermines the Boy Scout’s First Amendment right to expressive association and should be reversed.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The ACLU is engaging in a concerted campaign to destroy the Boy Scouts of America because of the moral principles the Scouts espouse and their refusal to allow homosexuals to become scout leaders. As a result of their anti-Christian jihad and quest to promote their political agenda at the expense of others, the ACLU has caused the removal of Scouting Charters from public schools, the removal of Scouts from United Way contributions in many communities, and is now hurting the children of San Diego by preventing the Scouts from providing inexpensive youth programs. The Law Center will do whatever it can to support Scouts of America, and defeat the ACLU.”

Because of their institutional moral values, the federal district court has prevented the Boy Scouts from leasing two parcels of park property from the City of San Diego for the purpose of providing inexpensive, outdoor activities for the City’s youth, claiming that this arrangement violates the Establishment Clause and related California constitutional provisions that seek to create a mythical “wall of separation between church and state.”

Law Center Trial Counsel Robert Muise, who authored the brief, noted, “It is unconstitutional to force an organization to forego its basic values, beliefs and practices in order to participate in a government program, such as the lease arrangements at issue in this case. Since the Boy Scouts succeeded in defending their membership policy in the U.S. Supreme Court five years ago, they have been under constant attack by those who seek to impose their pro-homosexual, anti-Christian agenda.”

The Law Center’s brief points out that the district court’s decision is contrary to the well-established law respecting the difference between government speech endorsing religion, which is prohibited by the Establishment Clause, and private speech endorsing religions, such as the Boy Scout’s speech, which is protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses.

 

 

$1 Million Judgment Awarded To “Pledge” Challenger Michael Newdow Set Aside By Court
Tue, Mar 15, 2005

ANN ARBOR, MI – Michael Newdow, who gained national attention for his near successful efforts to have the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court on technical grounds, has suffered another court loss. This time a California state court has set aside a $1 million dollar default judgment Newdow obtained against Reverend Austin Miles for libel.

The libel judgment was based on a news article written by Reverend Miles in which he opined that Newdow had lied to the court when he claimed his daughter was forced to recite the words “under God” as she was actually a Christian who willingly said the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

This past June, Newdow convinced a judge in a California state court to enter a default judgment against Miles in the amount of $1 million, because Miles had failed to respond to the lawsuit, even though Miles had never been served with a copy of the complaint and was not aware of the lawsuit.

After learning of the $1 million dollar judgment, Miles contacted the Thomas More Law Center to represent him. After a lengthy hearing this past December, the court issued an order lifting the default judgment and allowing the case to proceed to trial. The court explained that Miles had made a sufficient showing that he lacked actual notice of the lawsuit to warrant the default to be set aside. The court e

Pennsylvania School Board Selects Law Center to Fight ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Policy to Make Students Aware of Alternative Theories to Evolution
Tue, Dec 21, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Dover, Pennsylvania school board voted unanimously (7-0) Monday December 20th to appoint the Thomas More Law Center as its legal team to defend them against a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State challenging the school board decision to make students aware of alternative theories to evolution. The Thomas More Law Center agreed to defend the school board against the lawsuit without charge.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center blasted the ACLU’s lawsuit. “The ACLU is now showing its true colors. They are in the business of banning books from school libraries and suppressing academic freedom.” “The Dover school district policy on making students aware of alternatives to the theory of evolution is merely following the congressional intent contained in the conference report from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the specific amendment proposed by Senator Santorum passed by a 91-8 vote by the United States Senate,” said Thompson.

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, in his statement in the Congressional Record on December 18, 2001 indicated, “The time has come for school boards to resist threats of litigation from those who would censor teachers who teach the scientific controversy over origins, and to defend their efforts to expand student access to evidence and information about this timely and compelling controversy.”

Dover is the first school district in the United States to require teachers to make students aware of alternative theories to evolution, including the theory that the complexity of the universe suggests an “intelligent design.” The Dover school board voted 6-3 in October to adopt the new policy. According to polls, Americans overwhelmingly desire to learn more about the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Thompson continued, “Not only is Dover following congressional intent in adopting their policy, but their actions are constitutionally permissible.”

 

New Jersey School District Sued for Ban on Christmas Music
Mon, Dec 20, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — The controversial music policy adopted by the Maplewood Public School District banning traditional Christmas music including instrumentals, has now become the subject of a federal lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center. The lawsuit was filed Friday on behalf of Michael Stratechuk and his two children, who are students in the New Jersey School District, and claims that the policy is unconstitutional.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the federal civil rights lawsuit arguing that the School District’s total ban on religious music conveys the impermissible, government-sponsored message of disapproval of and hostility toward religion. The lawsuit further argues that because the religious music is banned from the public schools, students are denied the ability to learn about and listen to music that has influenced the social, cultural, and historic development of civilization.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This is another example of the anti-Christmas, anti-religion policy, infecting our public school system. The constitution does not require our public schools to become religion–free zones. Forcing students to strip all religious content from music is like asking them to study art history while excluding paintings from the Renaissance because they contain religious subjects.”

The lawsuit explains that the Maplewood policy was implemented to ban students and student groups form playing traditional Christmas music at events during the 2004 holiday season. Groups such as the Martin Luther King Gospel Choir and the Brass Ensemble have both been banned from performing any traditional Christmas songs and carols including instrumentals.

 

Law Center Files Supreme Court Brief in Support of Ten Commandments Display
Mon, Dec 13, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center announced Monday, December 13th that it has filed a friend of the court brief with the United States Supreme Court in support of Ten Commandments displays on public property. The case will be heard by the high court in February 2005 with a decision expected in June 2005.

The case involves two displays of the Ten Commandments in the lobbies of Kentucky courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties. Both displays originally only included framed copies of the Ten Commandments. After the ACLU sued to remove the displays, the two counties supplemented the framed copies of the Commandments with eleven historical documents, including the Mayflower Compact and the Bill of Rights, calling the new displays the “Foundations of American Law and Government.” The additional documents were chosen because, like the Ten Commandments, they played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government.

Despite the additions, a federal trial judge struck down the “Foundations” display because it included the Ten Commandments. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit agreed with the trial judge’s ruling, holding that the original display, which had only included the Ten Commandments, was “blatantly religious” and therefore “unconstitutionally tainted” the subsequent “Foundations” display. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

According to Edward L. White III, attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, “We trust the Supreme Court will reverse the decisions of the lower courts and permit the public display of the Ten Commandments, which has largely influenced the foundation of American law, and should be displayed in public.” “Our brief addresses the Sixth Circuit’s novel ‘unconstitutional taint’ argument and explains how it runs contrary to the governing law,” said White.

The Supreme Court’s acceptance of a case dealing with the public display of the Ten Commandments is long overdue. Since the Court struck down the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools in 1980, the justices have refused to review numerous cases involving the display of the Commandments on public property. Varying lower court decisions on the issue have led to widespread confusion and controversy, highlighted last year by the highly publicized case involving former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

The high court’s decision in this case could determine how courts will analyze future disputes over the display of other religious symbols on public property, such as nativity scenes and Christian crosses.

The Law Center has been involved in several cases involving the defense of the Ten Commandments, including two victories earlier this year in defeating separate efforts to remove displays of the Commandments from the cities of Pleasant Grove and Duchesne, Utah.

 

Challenging the Christmas “Grinch” in New York and Florida
Thu, Dec 9, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — With less than three weeks to go before Americans celebrate the national Christmas holiday, two prominent legal cases dealing with government policies that discriminate against Christmas religious displays during the holy season have each reached a critical stage. The Thomas More Law Center is fighting two separate cases, one in New York City and the other in Bay Harbor Islands, Florida, over policies that outlaw the public display of the Christian Nativity while permitting the display of symbols of other religions.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented Thursday, “Christmas is under siege throughout our nation, and the cases in New York and Bay Harbor Islands demonstrate the kind of hostility and double standard being used by officials to deny Christians the right to publicly celebrate one of their holiest seasons.”

In New York City, Law Center attorney Robert Muise will present oral argument Monday, December 13th, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Law Center’s case against the New York City Department of Education. The Law Center filed a federal lawsuit, challenging New York City’s policy that encourages and permits the display of the Jewish Menorah during Hanukkah and the Islamic star and crescent during Ramadan in the more than 1200 public schools in the City, but prohibits the similar display of the Christian Nativity during Christmas.

The appeal was filed after Senior U.S. District Court Judge Charles Sifton ruled that the City’s discriminatory policy was permissible because it was an accommodation of “multiculturalism” and “an attempt to diversify the season and provide non-Christian holidays with parity.”

Separately, Florida U.S. District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga is expected to rule early next week on a request for a temporary restraining order that would require the Town of Bay Harbor Islands to allow a Christian resident to the display the Nativity alongside existing Jewish Menorahs.

The emergency request was filed as a part of a federal lawsuit against the Town of Bay Harbor Islands for its practice of displaying exclusively Jewish religious symbols while prohibiting the similar display of a Christian Nativity. The Town had adorned the lampposts lining its main street with Jewish Menorahs and Stars of David and allowed a Jewish synagogue to display its Menorah in the most prominent, public location at the entrance of the town. However, the town denied a Christian resident permission for the second consecutive year to display her Christian Nativity scenes.

In a hearing in Miami earlier this week, Law Center attorney Edward White argued that Bay Harbor Islands is discriminating against Christians by violating the free speech rights of resident Sandra Snowden, who had been denied the right to display her private Nativity in a public forum. Town attorneys defended their policy, arguing that the Menorah can be displayed because it is a secular symbol and not a religious one, unlike the Nativity.

 

Florida Town Sued For Prohibiting Nativity Displays
Thu, Dec 2, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — Over the past several years during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, the Town of Bay Harbor Islands, Florida, has adorned the lampposts lining its main street with Jewish religious symbols of Menorahs and Stars of David and has allowed a Jewish synagogue to display its fourteen-foot Menorah in the most prominent public location at the entrance of Town. Yet every request by Sandra Snowden, a Christian resident, to display Nativity scenes purchased with her own money in a similar manner during the Christmas season, has been denied by Town officials.

As a result the Thomas More Law Center has filed a federal lawsuit against the Town and its officials for their refusal to allow a Nativity to be displayed, while at the same time allowing the display of Jewish religious symbols in prominent locations throughout the Town. The lawsuit was filed Thursday after Snowden was denied permission for the second consecutive year to display a Christian Nativity.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “As we approach Christmas, we are once again confronted with a Town that believes it is legally acceptable to discriminate against Christian religious symbols celebrating this holy season. This is one of the most outrageous examples of such discrimination.”

Starting last December, after the Menorahs and Stars of David had been displayed, Snowden contacted the Town and requested a more inclusive display of holiday decorations, since only Jewish religious symbols were featured. Then-Vice Mayor Isaac Salver responded in a letter by stating that he did not agree with her ideas about the decorations and commented, “it is sad to see one get deeply offended by something as trivial as holiday decorations.”

On December 8, 2003, Snowden requested at a Town Council meeting to display a Nativity scene alongside the synagogue’s Menorah. Council members responded by again characterizing her request as trivial explaining that the issue was not time sensitive and therefore not necessary for the Council to act upon until after Christmas 2003. When Snowden attempted to explain her Nativity display, Council members refused any further discussion and abruptly adjourned the meeting in protest.

In October 2004, Snowden again requested to display her Nativity scenes alongside the Jewish religious symbols displayed in the Town. The Town again refused her request, and Snowden sued, claiming that the Town has violated her free speech and equal protection rights and also has violated the establishment clause to the United States Constitution.

Law Center attorneys filed a similar lawsuit last year against the Town of Palm Beach, Florida for its refusal to respond to repeated requests to display a Nativity alongside town sanctioned Menorahs. This past May, a federal district court judge acknowledged the importance of recognizing religious holidays and ordered Palm Beach to treat all religious symbols equally.

Elsewhere the Law Center is pressing its case against the New York City public school system whose written policy permits students to display the Jewish Menorah, and the Islamic Star and Crescent, but prohibits students from displaying Christmas Nativity scenes.

 

U.S. Congress Acts to Save the Mt. Soledad Cross – Atheist Blames ‘Jihad Jesus Republicans’
Tue, Nov 23, 2004

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA — In a surprising turn of events, the United States Congress has joined the fight to keep the 43-foot tall cross atop Mount Soledad in San Diego, California, by designating the land on which it stands and the granite memorial walls surrounding it, a national veterans memorial. The congressional action came as a result of efforts by the Thomas More Law Center.

San Diego area Congressmen, Reps. Duncan Hunter, R–El Cajon, and Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Escondido, inserted the memorial designation as part of a spending bill awaiting approval by President Bush.

Phillip Paulson, the atheist who mounted a successful 15- year legal battle to remove the cross with support from the ACLU, told the San Diego Union-Tribune, “Jihad Jesus Republicans need to understand that the separation of church and state has kept this country from getting into religious wars.” “ If God was powerful, there would not be a need for the government to go in and force a religious agenda on nonbelieving citizens,” he continued.

The ACLU of San Diego also criticized the legislation calling it “political gamesmanship”.

San Diego attorney Charles LiMandri, Director of the Law Center’s western regional office who has led the effort to save the Mt. Soledad cross called the congressional action “an act of God”. LiMandri said Congress was not unconstitutionally endorsing religion because it intended to honor veterans in the same manner as the crosses at Arlington National Cemetery.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center responding to Paulson’s comments, “Those who want the Mt. Soledad cross removed erroneously base their case on the metaphor ‘separation of church and state,’ a phrase nowhere in the Constitution. This cross and memorial, soon to be officially designated a national veterans memorial is constitutionally permissible. It’s time to stop government by the ACLU and for the ACLU.”

Thompson acknowledged the battle is far from over and hopes the City of San Diego and the Veterans Memorial Association will now get behind efforts to keep the cross on top of Mount Soledad, where it has stood for fifty years. “We fully expect further legal challenges to tear down the cross, but we are not giving up either.”

President Bush is expected to sign the bill within the next few weeks.

According to the congressional designation, once the City of San Diego donates the land to the United States, the Secretary of the Interior shall administer the Memorial as a unit of the National Park System, giving the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association the right of continued maintenance of the cross and surrounding granite memorial walls and plaques.

 

Petition Launched to Save Mt. Soledad Cross – Sign Today!
Thu, Nov 18, 2004

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA — In an effort to save the famous 43-foot concrete cross, which has stood atop Mount Soledad in San Diego, CA for the past fifty years, the Thomas More Law Center and other concerned groups and citizens have launched a national petition drive urging federal officials to declare the Mount Soledad Veterans War Memorial a national memorial.

The historic site includes the 43- foot cross and memorial walls containing plaques honoring the service of thousands of American veterans from all wars. The cross has been the subject of a 15- year federal lawsuit brought by an avowed atheist that resulted in a federal court order requiring the Mt. Soledad Cross to be removed. Law Center attorneys believe a successful petition effort to have Mt. Soledad designated a National Memorial would allow the Cross to remain.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “We are deeply disappointed that after 15 years of fighting to keep the cross, the Mt. Soledad Memorial association joined forces with the atheist to remove it. However, by declaring the Mt. Soledad memorial and cross a national memorial, this entire controversy can be put to rest, and I ask that the Association join us in this endeavor. ”

The petition will be presented to a host of government officials whose responsibilities include the designation of historic sites as national memorials. The petition reads in part:
“Whereas, the Mount Soledad Cross and the Mount Soledad Veterans War Memorial represents our collective admiration and respect for veterans from all wars who have honorably served our nation in the Armed Forces…Whereas, a federal lawsuit by an avowed atheist has resulted in a court order requiring the Mt. Soledad Cross to be removed, and designation of the site as a National Memorial would allow the Cross to remain; We therefore, urge you to take the necessary steps to designate the Mt. Soledad Cross and the Mt. Soledad Veterans War Memorial a National Memorial.”

The petition also quotes from a May 22, 2001 letter from President George W. Bush describing the Soledad site as a “place to reflect on our past, be inspired by true American patriots, and offer war veterans our heartfelt gratitude for the freedom we all enjoy today.” You are invited to view and sign the petition by clicking here.

 

Church Accuses Veterans Group of Deception and Betrayal Over Mt. Soledad Cross – Law Center Vows to Keep Fighting
Fri, Nov 12, 2004

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA — In a bombshell revelation, the pastor of Mount Soledad Presbyterian Church has accused the Mount Soledad Memorial Association of deception and betrayal in the campaign to save the Mt Soledad Cross, and rescinded the offer to explore the possibility of placing the cross on church property.

In a letter to the Memorial Association’s president Bill Kellogg dated November 8th, Pastor Mark Slomka wrote, “We never anticipated that the Memorial Association would surrender the cross by actively campaigning against the only ballot measure that might protect it. We are disappointed that the Memorial Association, whose responsibility it was to guard the cross, chose to ally themselves with those (ACLU and plaintiff) whose intent has always been to remove the cross so that together they might defeat Proposition K.”

The Mount Soledad Memorial Association’s active campaign against Proposition K was responsible for a great deal of voter confusion. The failed ballot measure would have authorized the City of San Diego to sell the land surrounding the historic 43-foot tall Mt. Soledad cross, allowing the cross and memorial to remain while bringing to an end to the fifteen year court battle waged by atheist Phillip Paulsen to have the cross removed.

Instead, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association urged voters to vote against Proposition K, concealing the private agreement they had struck with atheist Phillip Paulsen to have the cross moved in return for a dismissal of the lawsuit against them and allowing them to keep the property. However, prior to the November 2nd vote, Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson ruled that the Memorial Association was not the rightful owner of the property, and returned the property to the City of San Diego. Without authorization from the voters to sell the land, the City of San Diego will now be forced to act on a court order to take down the 50-year old landmark.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which fought to preserve the cross on Mount Soledad, commented, “ We will continue to explore all options to preserve the cross on top of Mount Soledad where it has stood for fifty years.” One option involves the designation of Mt. Soledad as a national historical park/landmark. Charles LiMandri, the West Coast Regional Director of the Law Center has asked Reps. Randy Cunningham, Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa to look into the issue, and the Law Center is urging citizens to contact their legislators to have the cross protected.

LiMandri commented Thursday, “We continue to receive calls from citizens outraged by the orchestrated deception to remove the cross. Aside from the fraud perpetrated on voters, the veterans and donors to the Mt. Soledad Association have been utterly ignored. These people were promised that the cross would stay, and yet their own leadership has abandoned them. Time is short, but we will do everything we can to protect this historic landmark.”

The cross was erected in 1954 and today honors veterans of World War I and II and the Korean War. The San Diego landmark was challenged in 1989 by atheist Phillip Paulsen prompting a federal judge to declare the cross unconstitutional. In response, the City chose to place the property up for public sale, a decision approved by 76 percent of the voters in 1992. The sale of the property however was ruled unconstitutional after atheist Paulson objected because he believed the sale indirectly aided preserving the cross.

The City of San Diego attempted a second time to sell the property in 1998, this time to the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association. This second sale was also successfully challenged, however not before the Memorial Association made significant improvements to the land including the addition of over 3000 donated plaques honoring military veterans.

Earlier this year, believing they were the rightful owners of the property, the Association privately agreed to move the cross in exchange for an end to the lawsuit and a waiver of attorney fees for which the Association may become liable.
Paulsen’s attorney now will likely demand hundreds of thousands of dollars from the City of San Diego for his work to remove the cross.

 

Judge Dismisses LA Seal Case As Moot; Citizen Petition Drive Best Hope to Immediately Restore Cross on Seal
Fri, Oct 22, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — Finding that the cross on the Los Angeles County seal has been supplanted with a Christian church and the pagan goddess Pamona has been replaced with a Native American women, U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero ruled there was no hostility toward Christians and dismissed the lawsuit against the county over their decision to remove the cross from the seal as moot.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel and President of the Law Center, commented, “This decision makes the voter initiative petition drive sponsored by David Hernandez and Our First Amendment the most immediate and effective way in which the LA County citizens can return the cross to their seal. We’ve heard from the court, and now it’s time to hear from the people.”

The Thomas More Law Center is acting as legal counsel for the citizen petition effort.
Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling this matter, commented, “The court took the easy route by dismissing the case as moot and dodged the most critical issue presented: whether the Constitution permits the government from removing historical and cultural symbols from the public square simply because they are Christian. The overwhelming protest by the people of Los Angeles County clearly demonstrates that the County’s decision to remove the cross conveyed an impermissible message that the government disapproves of Christianity.”

In addition to the petition drive, a lawsuit was also filed in state court by the Claremont Institute alleging that the County’s decision to remove the cross was an illegal waste of taxpayer funds and violates state and federal constitutional provisions. This case is still pending.

ACLU’s threats of a lawsuit earlier this year prompted the LA County board by a 3 to 2 vote to remove the cross from the LA seal. Several days later, the Thomas More Law Center, a national, public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of Mr. Ernesto Vasquez, a County employee, who objected to the removal of the cross because it sends an unconstitutional government message of hostility towards Christians. The lawsuit sought to prevent County officials from removing the cross. Although the County seal also contained the image of the pagan goddess Pomona, neither the ACLU nor County officials objected to the display of this symbol.

While the present litigation was pending, the Board of Supervisors adopted a new County seal that removed Pomona and replaced the cross with a depiction of a Christian mission. In dismissing the lawsuit as moot, Otero ruled, “[T]he Christian cross has been supplanted with a visual representation of a Christian church. In view of this fact, this case is moot and must be dismissed.”

Judge Otero’s ruling raises additional questions about the County Board’s decision to cave in to the ACLU threats. If the court considers a symbol of a Christian church to be an acceptable replacement, why is the Christian symbol of a cross unconstitutional? If the church is a symbol of the Christian heritage of the missions in California, why is the cross not viewed in a similar manner? Will the agreement between the Board and the ACLU prevent another organization from filing a lawsuit challenging the symbol of the church since Otero found it to be a Christian symbol.

The Law Center is reviewing the court’s ruling for possible further legal action.

Second Utah City Within Five Months Wins Ten Commandments Monument Fight
Wed, Oct 20, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI -In a ruling released yesterday, Federal District Judge Dee Benson held that Duchesne City, Utah, acted constitutionally when it sold land on which a Ten Commandments monument sits to keep from having to remove it. This is the second case within the past five months in which two public interest law firms, the Thomas More Law Center and the American Center for Law and Justice, have collaborated as co-counsel to prevent the removal of Ten Commandment Monuments in Utah.

The Duchesne decision comes within five months after another federal judge ruled in favor of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, allowing a separate Ten Commandments monument to remain on public property. The two public interest law firms acted as co-counsel in that case as well.

Duchesne City’s decision to sell the public land surrounding the Ten Commandments monument to the family who originally donated the monument over twenty-five years ago allowed the monument to remain, while removing the City from the controversy over whether the City was promoting religious speech.

The Summum group, a bizarre organization describing itself as a religion that promotes mummification, objected to the sale of the land on which the Ten Commandment monument stands, and requested that the City transfer a similar plot of land so that it could erect its own monument containing its “seven aphorisms.” After the City refused, Summum sued alleging violations of its First Amendment free speech rights.

Judge Benson explained, “Under all of the circumstances the method the City recently undertook is reasonable. Summum’s demands for a different resolution are not warranted.” Commenting on the likely outcome of granting Summum’s request, Benson wrote: “Any solution of that nature would open the door to another display and then another, and so on, until the city park looks like a NASCAR driver at the Brickyard 400.”

Edward L. White III, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who represented the City, explained: “Duchesne City sought a reasonable solution that is constitutionally permissible to keep the Ten Commandments monument where it stands while preventing itself from being forced to display permanent monuments from anyone who asked.”

 

Judge Rules City of San Diego Rightful Owner of Mt. Soledad – Voters Urged to Approve New Sale to Preserve Historic Cross
Wed, Oct 13, 2004

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA —A federal judge ruled late Tuesday that the contested land atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California is rightfully owned by the City of San Diego. Tuesday’s decision effectively puts a stop to plans by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association to remove a 43-foot cross that has stood on the mountaintop for over 50 years.

The veterans group had privately agreed with an ACLU backed atheist to remove the cross in exchange for a halt to his 15-year old lawsuit aimed at tearing down the cross. San Diego voters will now vote in November on whether to authorize a new sale of the land to a private owner that would have the option of preserving the cross.

The West Coast Regional office of the Thomas More Law Center had filed a brief in federal court challenging the attempt by the Memorial Association to remove the cross. The Law Center’s brief was filed on behalf of a former Navy fighter pilot who is enlisting the support of other veterans to oppose removal of the cross.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented on the judge’s ruling, “We are tremendously pleased with the Judge’s decision. Hopefully, the Memorial Association will now re-examine its private deal with the plaintiff to remove the cross, and join the fight to preserve it. It would be the right thing to do.”

The cross was erected in 1954 and today honors veterans of World War I and II and the Korean War. The San Diego landmark has been the subject of a fifteen-year court battle between an atheist and the City of San Diego. The City has twice attempted to sell the land containing the cross, the second time to the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association in 1998.

After taking pos

Michigan Voters Join Nationwide Mandate in Support of Traditional Marriage – Law Center Prepared to Defend Bans if Challenged
Wed, Nov 3, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — Michigan voters turned out Tuesday to overwhelmingly support a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, by an estimated margin of 60-40%. The Michigan results reflected a national trend where 10 other states also passed constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which played a significant role in drafting the language of Michigan’s amendment commented, “We have a nationwide mandate in support of traditional marriage. Nevertheless, we expect homosexual activists to mount federal court challenges to these amendments in an effort to defeat the will of the people. We are ready for them.”

Michigan’s constitutional amendment, considered the broadest of the 11 state amendments, provides that “…the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” The amendment is intended to prohibit courts or other efforts to impose same-sex marriage, polygamy, or any other form of counterfeit “marriage” on the state.

Patrick T. Gillen, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center advising the organizers of Proposal 2 stated, “History and common sense have demonstrated that marriage is a social institution between a man and a woman, which is a natural union that serves as the only firm basis for the natural family.”

“Voters confirmed that persons with same-sex attractions have no right to demand a radical redefinition of marriage or a radical social experiment with the family,” continued Gillen.

Proponents of the effort to amend the state constitution point out that an ever-growing body of social science is confirming the vital contribution that traditional marriage makes to the good of the spouses, children and, ultimately, society at large. At the same time, the social sciences continue to confirm the commonsense judgment that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful to adults and children raised in same-sex households.

 

Poll Shows Michigan Strongly Behind Proposal 2, Traditional Marriage
Thu, Oct 28, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — A new poll on Michigan’s Proposal 2 published by the Detroit Free Press indicates strong support for the proposed state constitutional amendment that would protect traditional marriage. Thursday’s edition of the Detroit Free Press reported that their latest poll shows 60% of respondents support Proposal 2, while only 35% oppose it.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which aided in drafting the language of the amendment commented, “This amendment is about protecting and promoting the timeless institution of marriage and the family. We all witnessed what happened in Massachusetts earlier this year when the highest court in that state forced gay marriage on the people.”

The proposed constitutional amendment would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and prohibit courts or other efforts to impose same-sex marriage, polygamy, or any other form of marriage on the state.

Patrick T. Gillen, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center advising the organizers of Proposal 2 stated, “History and common sense have demonstrated that marriage is a social institution between a man and a woman, which is a natural union that serves as the only firm basis for the natural family.”

“Those persons with same-sex attractions have no right to demand a radical redefinition of marriage and the family or a radical social experiment with the family,” continued Gillen.

Proponents of the effort to amend the state constitution point out that an ever-growing body of social science is confirming the vital contribution that traditional marriage makes to the good of the spouses, children and, ultimately, society at large. At the same time, the social sciences continue to confirm the commonsense judgment that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful to adults and children raised in same-sex households.

Thompson continued, “It is truly unfortunate that at the very time evidence continues to mount proving the importance of the traditional family, there is a movement to engage in a radical redefinition of that institution.”

 

Fight Not Over – Thomas More Law Center Files Appeal Seeking to Stay Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Decision
Tue, Jun 15, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center has filed an appeal with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, seeking to stay the court’s decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which legalized same-sex marriage. As a result of that decision, same-sex couples have been permitted to marry in Massachusetts as of May 17, 2004. The appeal, which in all likelihood is the last legal action surviving in the state courts that is capable of stopping this decision, was filed on behalf of C. Joseph Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts.

In legalizing same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Court candidly claimed that its decision “marks a change in the history of our marriage law.” The Court acknowledged that this change affected the historic, civil, and legal understanding in Massachusetts and elsewhere that marriage constitutes the union of one man and one woman.

On April 20, 2004, the Law Center petitioned a single justice of the court on behalf of Doyle to put the Goodridge decision on hold out of respect for and in deference to the Constitution of the Commonwealth. The petition and an ensuing request for an expedited appeal were denied, but the full Court ultimately decided that Doyle’s appeal could “proceed in the ordinary course,” keeping the case alive. As a result, Doyle filed the present appeal.

The appeal argues that the Court should stay its decision so that the process currently underway to amend the state’s constitution by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman can proceed unhindered. Noting that the Massachusetts Constitution “ensures the people that judges will not use the law to impose their opinion about how society should be ordered regardless of the democratic will,” the Law Center argues in its brief that “what happens with the legal institution of marriage should ultimately depend on the democratic processes outlined in the Commonwealth’s Constitution rather than by judicial fiat.”

According to Robert Muise, Associate Counsel handling the case for the Law Center, “Mr. Doyle is a citizen of Massachusetts, and he has a constitutional right to be heard on this issue. It is simply irresponsible for the Court to ignore the grave implications of its decision and to forge ahead with it in light of the constitutional process that is underway to reverse it. What will be the status at the conclusion of the constitutional amendment process of those same-sex couples who have already sought ‘marriage’ as a result of the Goodridge decision? The ensuing legal chaos is predictable. The Court has an obligation to stay its decision to prevent further harm until the amendment process is completed.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “The adverse effects of this decision are not only being felt in Massachusetts, but throughout the country as well. Four, un-elected judges in Massachusetts are deciding this important social and cultural issue for the rest of this nation. ”

Other pro-family law groups joining the appeal on behalf of Doyle include Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, Liberty Counsel, and AFA Center for Law and Policy.

 

Federal Lawsuit Filed to Stop Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts
Mon, May 10, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — With only a week remaining until same-sex couples will be allowed to legally marry in Massachusetts, the Thomas More Law Center and several other pro-family groups have opened up a new front by filing a federal lawsuit claiming that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court exceeded its authority by redefining marriage thereby violating the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government.

The Thomas More Law Center joined Liberty Counsel, Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, and AFA Center for Law and Policy in asking a federal judge to stop the enforcement of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the decision which legalized so called “same-sex marriage.”

Under the Massachusetts constitution, it is the role of the legislature and not the courts to define marriage for the Commonwealth. By accepting jurisdiction to hear the Goodridge case in the first instance and by redefining marriage to permit same-sex couples to marry, the Massachusetts high court exceeded the powers granted it and thereby violated the federal constitutional guarantee that prevents one branch of government from acting above the law.

According to the lawsuit, the judicial activism that produced this decision violates the federal constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government. The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government.” This constitutional provision serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch of government thereby reducing the risk of tyranny.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Judicial activism is destroying our culture. The Goodridge decision, if left unchecked, will have far reaching implications on the institution of traditional marriage that go well beyond the borders of Massachusetts. This is a national problem that must be addressed now.”

In the Goodridge case, the Massachusetts high court acknowledged that its decision changed the history of marriage law and was contrary to the historic, civil, and legal understanding in Massachusetts and elsewhere that marriage constituted the union of one man and one woman. Nevertheless, the court construed civil marriage to mean “the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others,” thereby redefining marriage to include same-sex partners.

In a related state court case, the Law Center and others filed an appeal this past Friday with the Massachusetts high court asking it to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage. The Law Center had previously filed a petition with a single justice of the court seeking to put a hold on Goodridge. However, the single justice hearing the request denied it, questioning whether he had the authority to grant the stay.

The Law Center is appealing this decision and asking the full court to exercise its power to stay its decision pending the outcome of the process that is already underway to amend the state’s constitution to ban “same-sex marriages.” According to the appeal, it would be “irresponsible [for the Court] to ignore the grave implications of [its] decision and to forge ahead with it in light of the constitutional process that is underway to reverse it.”

According to Robert Muise, associate counsel handling the cases for the Law Center, “In a series of Revolutionary War pamphlets entitled American Crisis, Thomas Paine claimed that ‘These are the times that try men’s souls.’ These words ring true today. Just as the founders of our Nation were battling the tyrannical rule of England, the citizens of this nation are now battling the tyrannical rule of the courts. As history reveals, there is much at stake.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. It depends on contributions from individuals, corporations and Foundations. It is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

 

Law Center Seeks Stay in Massachusetts Same-Sex Marriage Decision to Prevent Legal Chaos
Tue, Apr 20, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — Claiming it is necessary to prevent legal chaos, a petition to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts seeking to stay its decision legalizing same-sex marriage was filed today by the Thomas More Law Center, and several other pro-family legal groups. The petition is asking the Court to put its decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health on hold — a decision which held that it was unlawful to deny same-sex couples the benefits and protections of marriage under Massachusetts’ state law. As a result of this decision, same-sex couples will be permitted to marry in Massachusetts beginning May 17, 2004.

Other pro-family law groups joining the petition on behalf of a Massachusetts citizen include Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, Liberty Counsel, and AFA Center for Law and Policy. The petition is asking the Court to stay its decision so that the constitutional process, which is already underway, to amend the state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman may proceed unhindered. According to the petition, “The right of the citizens of Massachusetts . . . to decide constitutional matters through the amendment process will be undermined should the effect of Goodrich be fully realized prior to the vote.”

In the Goodridge case, the Massachusetts Court candidly claimed that its decision “marks a change in the history of our marriage law.” The Court acknowledged that this change affected the historic, civil, and legal understanding in Massachusetts and elsewhere that marriage constituted the union of one man and one woman. Nevertheless, the Court construed civil marriage to mean “the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others,” thereby redefining marriage to include same-sex partners.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “Allowing same-sex marriages will radically transform society. And this decision is a tragic example of how activist judges across this country are usurping the power of the people to direct the course of our society and culture. The people of Massachusetts have a proud history of fighting tyranny. Now it is time to fight the tyranny of the judiciary.”

According to Robert Muise, Associate Counsel handling the case for the Law Center, “The citizens of Massachusetts have a right to be heard on this issue by amending their constitution to protect traditional marriage. It is the people of this state who hold the ultimate power to govern, not a handful of activists judges who seek to impose their radical political agenda on the majority. The process to amend the state’s constitution to reflect the will of the people is underway, and the Supreme Judicial Court has an obligation to step aside and let the process work its course.”

 

Thomas More Law Center Seeks to Defend Marriage By Intervening in Three New York Lawsuits
Mon, Apr 19, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — In an attempt to ensure that New York’s marriage laws are vigorously defended, five parties have filed motions seeking to intervene to defend the constitutionality of laws barring same-sex marriage in three cases now pending in the State of New York. The decision to intervene was made after New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer released an opinion expressing reservations about the constitutionality of New York laws barring same-sex marriage. The parties seeking to intervene are represented by the Thomas More Law Center, Liberty Counsel, and the AFA Center for Law and Policy, all Christian- based public interest law firms.

The three cases now pending in New York involve lawsuits filed against public officials for their failure to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Private citizens represented by the ACLU, the LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund, and a private attorney in Rockland County brought the lawsuits in an effort to challenge New York laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. One of the cases involves Daniel O’Donnell, brother of prominent homosexual activist Rosie O’Donnell.

The parties that seek intervention represent a variety of interests affected by New York’s state law governing marriage. Senators Ruben Diaz, Sr. and Raymond Meir are co-sponsors of S2220, state legislation that bars recognition of same sex marriages in New York. Along with Assemblyman Dan Hooker, the Senators seek to intervene to defend New York’s existing laws and ensure that the state legislature, and not the courts address this matter.

The New York Family Policy Counsel is a public interest group dedicated to protecting the institution of the family as traditionally understood and protected by New York law. Mike Long is the head of the Conservative Party of New York and business owner who likewise seeks to defend New York’s laws.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center said that intervention is necessary in order to ensure that New York’s marriage laws are vigorously defended without regard to politics. “Under the pretext of redefining marriage, we are witnessing an attempt by radical homosexual groups to destroy the family. If these groups succeed it will mean the ultimate destruction of the family which has served as the foundation of our society and western civilization.”

The cases in which the Thomas More Law Center is seeking to intervene include, Hernandez v. Robles, Shields v. Madigan (Rockland County), and Samuels v. New York.

Federal Judge Orders Fort Myers, Florida, to Stop Enforcing Permit Ordinance Targeting Pro-Life Advocates
Wed, Dec 22, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — As a result of a lawsuit brought by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, a federal district court judge has ordered the City of Fort Meyers, Florida, to stop enforcing a city permit ordinance that threatened pro-life sidewalk counselors with arrest and fines every time they appeared on the sidewalks in front of the city’s only abortion facility, the Fort Myers Women’s Health Clinic.

Edward L. White III, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented, “We are pleased that our clients and other pro-life advocates will no longer have their First Amendment rights violated in Fort Myers. They are now free to pray and pass out literature without unconstitutional restriction as they try to save the lives of unborn children.”

The City required pro-life advocates to obtain a permit under the City’s parade ordinance before more than two of them could engage in First Amendment activity and prohibited them from approaching people and distributing informational literature under a separate City policy. As a result, if two sidewalk counselors appeared in front of the abortion facility and then were joined by an unexpected third pro-lifer, all three were subject to arrest and fines. Because of this continuous threat of arrest, some pro-life counselors had abandoned their sidewalk counseling in front of the Fort Myers Women’s Health Clinic.

The Law Center filed the lawsuit in early November on behalf Judith Minahan, Edward and Marilyn Melone, and John Vetter, all of whom are Christians motivated by their faith to expose the evils of abortion. They sought to pray on the public sidewalk outside the Fort Myers Women’s Health Center and counsel expectant mothers in a non-confrontational manner to find alternatives to abortion.

The lawsuit claimed that enforcement of the ordinance and policy violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, including their freedom of speech, and sought $1.00 in nominal damages for each of the plaintiffs and the repayment of the $5.00 permit fees they were required to pay over the years as well as the Law Center’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Federal District Judge Steele ordered the City of Fort Myers to stop enforcing its permit ordinance and its policy prohibiting the distribution of literature, to pay $124 to the Law Center’s clients, and to pay the Law Center $25,889.20 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

Woman Wins 5-Year Legal Battle To See Her Court File Involving Her Abortion Request When She Was a Minor
Tue, Nov 30, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI – When 15 years old and suffering from a mental illness that required her to take prescribed medication, FG found she was pregnant. Instead of telling either one of her parents, she went to a Washtenaw County Probate Court Judge for a judicial bypass to get an abortion without informing or getting her parents’ permission.

In February 2000, a few years after her abortion, FG, through the Thomas More Law Center, requested to see her court file. She wanted to learn whether the probate court had been informed about her mental condition, to learn whether she actually agreed to the judicial bypass and to the abortion, and to see whether any of her rights had been violated. Because of her medical condition, FG had only a vague memory of what had taken place during the probate court proceeding. Nevertheless, a Washtenaw County Probate Judge denied her request.

After a series of appeals lasting 5 years, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled last week that FG had a right to see her file. In a November 23, 2004 opinion written by Judge Thomas Fitzgerald, and joined by Judge Joel Hoekstra, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. Judge Jessica Cooper dissented.

Edward L. White III, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented, “Not only were we able to obtain the proper relief for our client, but we have established legal principles that will guide courts when ruling on requests by women who want access to their own court files that deal with the judicial bypass proceedings.”

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “Most parents don’t realize that a court in a secret hearing can authorize an abortion for a minor without the knowledge, input, or consent of her parents. Until the ruling in this case, court bypass proceedings were even kept secret from the girl who went through the proceedings.”

 

Fort Myers, Florida, Sued For Restricting Pro-Life Speech of Christian Sidewalk Counselors
Wed, Nov 10, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI —The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Fort Myers, Florida, and several of its officials for policies and practices curtailing the free speech rights of pro-life sidewalk counselors to pray and handout pro-life informational literature.

The Law Center filed suit on behalf of Judith Minahan, Edward and Marilyn Melone, and John Vetter, all of whom are Christians motivated by their faith to expose the evils of abortion. They seek to pray on the public sidewalk outside a Fort Myers abortion clinic and counsel expectant mothers in a non-confrontational manner to find alternatives to abortion.

The City of Fort Myers and its officials, however, require pro-life advocates to obtain a permit before more than two of them may engage in such activity. They are also prohibited from approaching people and distributing informational literature. As a result, if three pro-life advocates pray on the public sidewalk without a permit and hand out literature, they are subject to arrest.

According to Edward L. White III, the Law Center attorney handling the case, “Our clients simply want to peacefully pray and present a pro-life message on a public sidewalk without fear of arrest. We are seeking relief from the federal court to allow them and other pro-life advocates to do so freely without being subject to further violations of their constitutional rights.”

The Law Center has requested the federal court grant immediate relief to its clients so that they may engage in peaceful First Amendment activities on the public sidewalks of Fort Myers without being subjected to unconstitutional restrictions and threats of arrest.

 

Kentucky Supreme Court Unleashes Power of the State to Kill its Own Citizens
Wed, Sep 1, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI —The Kentucky Supreme Court issued a stunning decision on August 26th granting legal authority to the state of Kentucky to end the life of a totally innocent ward of the state. The case involved a mildly retarded black male, Matthew Woods, who was placed on a ventilator after suffering cardiac arrest at the age of 54. The state requested permission to remove his life support, contrary to the wishes of Woods’ guardian ad litem.

Although Woods died of natural causes during the litigation process, the Court agreed to rule on the legality of the state’s request because of the legal questions involved. Prior to his natural death, Woods had never expressed whether he wanted life-supporting measures removed.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This decision is another step down the slippery slope toward a culture of death where the government decides which lives are worthy to be lived. Kentucky should protect the welfare and rights of all of its citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable. The state Supreme Court has now declared that the lives of some of its citizens are not worthy of protection.”

The Thomas More Law Center and cooperating attorney Robert Cetrulo, submitted an amicus brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court, urging the Court to apply Kentucky’s guardianship for disabled persons statute, which would prohibit the state from authorizing the removal of a ward’s life support without his consent.

A majority of the Kentucky Supreme Court disagreed with the Law Center’s position and determined that the “Kentucky Living Will Directive Act” constitutionally permits the Commonwealth to authorize the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment from an incompetent ward of the state without any evidence of the ward’s desires regarding such treatment.

Two justices of the Court however agreed with the position of the Thomas More Law Center. Justice Wintersheimer, joined by Justice Stumbo, strongly dissented from the majority’s decision: “It is deeply disappointing that this Court would decide to allow an agency of this State to end the life of a totally innocent ward of that very same State. It is even more shameful to realize that the State would seek to terminate the innocent human life of a person entrusted to its care and protection.”

Justice Wintersheimer warned, “Today, this case involves a mentally deficient ward of the State. Who knows whom it will involve in the future? Only by making the mistaken assumption that it could never happen, the power of the State has been unleashed to kill its own citizens.”

Woods was a mildly retarded black male with an I.Q. of 71 and with the intellectual capacity of an 8 to 10 year old child. When he was 54, he suffered a cardiac arrest, fell into a permanently unconscious state, and was placed on a mechanical ventilator. About 3 weeks later, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, as his limited guardian, requested permission to authorize the removal of his life support. Woods’s guardian ad litem challenged the request. Based on the Kentucky Living Will Directive Act, the Kentucky District Court, Circuit Court, and Court of Appeals approved the request.

 

Virginia School Backs Down: Allows Student To Wear Clothing Expressing Her Pro-Life Views
Thu, Jun 10, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — Osbourn Park High School, a public school in Manassas, Virginia, backed down from its policy prohibiting students from wearing pro-life clothing after threat of a lawsuit by the Thomas More Law Center.

On April 16, 2004, Heather Holbrook, a senior, was told by her assistant principal that she could no longer wear her sweatshirt to school. The sweatshirt displayed the message: “Abortion is Homicide. You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.”

The assistant principal’s reason for prohibiting the clothing kept on changing. First, the assistant principal claimed the shirt displayed a message the school did not want to promote. Later, when questioned by Heather’s mother, the assistant principal claimed the shirt expressed a political message, the same as a Confederate flag. Finally in a letter to Heather’s family, the assistant principal claimed Heather’s pro-life message was “offensive.”

The Holbrook family then contacted the Thomas More Law Center, which does not charge for its legal services. In a letter sent last week to school officials, the Law Center explained that Heather has a First Amendment right to express herself on campus, even on such controversial subjects as abortion, and requested immediate written assurance that Heather’s First Amendment rights would be restored. School officials were warned that if they continued to silence Heather, the Holbrook family had the right to file a federal lawsuit to restore Heather’s free speech rights.

Two days later, the school district provided written assurance that Heather would be permitted to wear her pro-life sweatshirt to school.

After hearing the news, Heather commented, “I am happy that I can once again express my pro-life views in school. God’s message will not be silenced, and to God be the glory.”

According to Edward L. White III, Associate Counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, “We handle these cases across the country at no charge because we believe in the pro-life messages advanced by these students, and we will not tolerate the silencing of those messages.”

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “This is another example of a school attempting to silence a student’s pro-life message. Students are not required to express only those messages that the school approves. Heather and her family should be applauded for having the courage to stand up to the school.”

 

The S.D. Abortion Bill Reveals the Future of the Pro-Life Movement
Tue, May 25, 2004

The following editorial was written by Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame Law School. The editorial was published in The Wanderer newspaper on April 29, 2004.

Recent events in South Dakota provide further empirical evidence that the National Right to Life Committee has become, in net effect, a barnacle on the pro-life ship of state.

On February 10, 2004, the South Dakota House of Representatives passed HB 1191 which provided: “The legislature finds that the life of a human being begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm…

“The guarantee of due process of law under the South Dakota Bill of Rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings and …there is no justification for the taking of a guiltless human life by the state or by any person…

“Any treatment, or administration of any drug to a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being is a felony.”

HB 1191 was consistent with Catholic teaching on abortion, including the principle of the double effect. It provided: “Any licensed physician who provides health care to a pregnant woman shall, in all cases, make every effort to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child. Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death of the unborn child is not a violation of this statute.”

HB 1191 was sponsored by pro-life Rep. Matt McCaulley, assisted by the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich. Richard Thompson, president of the Law Center, said: “Immediately after the bill was announced, National Right to Life spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed passage of the bill as not being the right time…State Sen. Jay Duenwald, an officer in both the state and National Right to Life organizations, led behind-the-scenes opposition when the bill reached the [Senate]. Together with pro-abortion senators, Duenwald’s lobbying efforts succeeded in removing the ban and replacing it with an informed consent measure, something already covered by South Dakota law. “However, the ban was reinserted on the Senate floor through a compromise measure that created an exception for the life of the mother and if there a was a serious risk if substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”

That watered-down and defective substitute was vetoed by Gov. Mike Rounds who insisted on technical changes in style and form. The bill failed to pass over his veto. “There is something horribly wrong,” said Rep. McCaulley, “when South Dakota Right to Life and Planned Parenthood are on the same side of an issue.” NRLC, as an organization, has rarely met a compromise it didn’t like. In this case the South Dakota affiliate of NRLC actively derailed the useful and sound, no-compromise bill as passed by the House of Representatives.

The essential holding of Roe v. Wade, is that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn.” The court so ruled without deciding whether the unborn child is a living human being: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.” In various cases since Roe, the court has declined to decide that question. Instead, the court has rested on the basic holding of Roe that, whether or not the unborn child is a human being, he is a nonperson for purposes of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court, however, has recognized in numerous situations “the authority of the state…to adopt in its own constitution individual liberties more expansive that those conferred by the federal Constitution” – Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980). A state therefore can expand, but not contract, the protection given to a constitutional right by the Supreme Court. HB 1191 affirmed, as a matter of South Dakota law, that unborn human beings are entitled to the protections of the South Dakota Bill of Rights. It provided to them greater protections under South Dakota law than are provided by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment. HB 1191 was not merely a restriction of the abortion right. It extended to the unborn the right to life which the South Dakota Bill of Rights guarantees, as a matter of state law, to human beings.

Contrary to the NRLC, HB 1191 was not a futile exercise. It was an affirmation not only of the rights of the unborn child under South Dakota law but also of the reserved power of the state of South Dakota to define, as a matter of state law, the meaning and scope of the South Dakota Bill of Rights. HB 1191, as passed by the House, would have served an educational and legal purpose. It is important to present repeatedly to the Supreme Court laws which affirm the conviction of the American people that Roe v. Wade is totally wrong and that all human beings, including the unborn, are entitled to the protection of the law.

With respect to Roe v. Wade, it makes sense to adopt the approach taken by Abraham Lincoln on the Dred Scott case. That case similarly denied the personhood of innocent human beings – the slaves. In his Chicago debate with Stephen A. Douglas, on July 10, 1858, Lincoln said:

“If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new territory, in spite of that Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should…. [W]e will try to reverse that decision. We will try to put it where Judge Douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. Somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made, and we mean to reverse it, and we meant to do it peaceably.”

Richard Thompson summed up the lesson that can be learned from this episode: “It is one thing for National Right to Life to disagree with the timing of a bill banning abortions, it is a betrayal of the unborn and pro-life movement. When is it the wrong time to do what is right? This organization has lost the moral authority to lead the pro-life cause.”

The NRLC is too frequently an embarrassment to the pro-life cause. The Thomas More Center (734-827-2001; www.thomasmore.org) is a fighting force. Its lawyers, in addition to Dick Thompson, are Pat Gillen, Rob Muise, and Ed White.

The future of the pro-life movement belongs to warriors like these.

 

Pro-Life Leader’s Blistering Attack on the National Right to Life Committee
Tue, May 25, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — A “barnacle on the pro-life ship of state,” “frequent embarrassment to the pro-life cause,” and an organization that “has rarely met a compromise it didn’t like,” were some of the words used to describe the National Right to Life Committee by Notre Dame Law Professor Emeritus and respected national pro-life leader, Charles E Rice.

Rice’s unflattering descriptions of NRLC were part of a recent commentary published by The Wanderer, a national Catholic weekly focusing on the behind the scenes efforts by NRLC to defeat South Dakota legislation intended to ban abortion and challenge the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. The legislation, HB 1191, was introduced earlier this year, falling one vote shy of passing after representatives of the National Right to Life Committee and its state affiliate advocated its defeat by arguing that the time is not right.

“Contrary to NRLC, HB 1191 was not futile exercise,” said Rice. The legislation “would have presented to the Supreme Court a two part question it has not yet resolved: Is the unborn child in fact a living human being? May a state so find as a matter of state law and extend to that human being the protections of its state constitution so as to protect that unborn person’s life to a greater extent than the protections afforded to it by the 14th Amendment?”

In his April 29th commentary, Rice explained, “HB 1191 was consistent with Catholic teaching on abortion, including the principle of double effect.” Rice noted however that immediately after the bill was announced, NRLC spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed passage of the bill as not being the right time.

The legislation, making abortion a crime with no exceptions, was passed by the South Dakota House of Representatives 54-14, only to be upended in a series of political maneuvers in the Senate by NRLC Board Member and South Dakota State Senator Jay Duenwald, who urged legislators to abandon the ban on abortion arguing that the time was not right to challenge Roe v. Wade.

Rice explains, “NRLC, as an organization has rarely met a compromise it did not like. In this case, the South Dakota affiliate of NRLC actively derailed the useful and sound, no compromise bill as passed by the House of Representatives.”

In closing, Rice noted, “The NRLC is too frequently an embarrassment to the pro-life cause.” “The Thomas More Law Center is a fighting force,” continued Rice. “The future of the pro-life movement belongs to warriors like these.”

 

Students Take Pro-Life Message Into Public Schools With Legal Backing
Mon, Apr 26, 2004

ANN ARBOR, MI — Marking the second annual “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day,” thousands of students across the country are preparing to bring the pro-life message to America’s public schools on Tuesday. In addition to the pro-life messages on their clothing, students will also bring the legal backing of the Thomas More Law Center. The Law Center has pledged to defend the free speech rights of these pro-life students from any attempt by school officials to force them to remove their t-shirts.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “Abortion advocates are losing their grip on the American public, and are turning increasingly to public schools to indoctrinate our children into accepting abortion. Pro-life students from across the country are standing up for the rights of the unborn, and are bringing this message to their schools. We are proud to defend these courageous pro-life students.”

Each year the Thomas More Law Center receives numerous calls from students across the country whose rights have been violated by public school officials. This past February a student at Denbigh High School in Newport News, Virginia was censored for his sweatshirt that read, “Abortion is Homicide” and on the back stated, “You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.” The student was prevented from wearing the shirt because, according to the Assistant Principal, it violated school policy prohibiting profane or obscene language.

The Law Center immediately sent a letter to the school demanding that the student be permitted to wear his pro-life sweatshirt, threatening a federal lawsuit if necessary. Within two days, attorneys for the school agreed that the student had a constitutional right to wear his pro-life sweatshirt.

The Law Center has defended students in similar cases in Michigan, Pennsylvania, California, Texas, New Hampshire, New York, and Maine.

“We anticipate that during this year’s National Pro-Life T-shirt Day that some school officials will again attempt to silence the pro-life messages of students. And again, we will assist these students and their families without charge,” continued Thompson.

The “National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day” is a national event organized by the American Life League and its affiliate Rock for Life. Information and materials can be found at www.rockforlife.org.

 

Report Regarding NRLC Role in Defeat of South Dakota Legislative Effort to Ban Abortion and Challenge Roe v. Wade
Wed, Mar 31, 2004

TO: CONCERNED PRO-LIFERS

DATE: March 31, 2004

FROM: Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel, Thomas More Law Center

RE: REPORT REGARDING THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE’S ROLE IN THE DEFEAT OF SOUTH DAKOTA’S LEGISLATIVE EFFORT TO BAN ABORTION AND CHALLENGE ROE V. WADE
INTRODUCTION

Over the past week, the Thomas More Law Center has received numerous inquires questioning National Right to Life Committee’s (NRLC) role in the defeat of South Dakota’s House Bill 1191 (HB1191), designed to ban abortions, and described by major pro-abortion groups as “… the most sweeping anti-abortion state law enacted in our nation since before Roe v. Wade.” These calls of inquiry have related to a public statement from the Thomas More Law Center designed to inform the public about NRLC’s actions with respect to HB 1191.

All should know that HB 1191 caused a national alarm among pro-abortion groups. According to the March 2nd issue of the Argus Leader, Sondra Goldschein of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, speaking from her New York office, said that many states have attempted to limit abortion but none in the fashion of South Dakota: “I think we are just shocked by what the State Legislature is doing,” she says. “It’s the most extreme example I can think of, and it’s a real example.”

HB 1191 had the support of the Catholic Bishop whose Diocese covers the state capitol. It had the endorsement of nationally renowned pro-life constitutional scholars, Notre Dame law professors Charles Rice and Gerard Bradley. And it had the support of rank and file pro-lifers, many of whom braved a South Dakota snowstorm to demonstrate for the bill during the legislative sessions.

On March 22, 2004, we issued a public statement regarding HB 1191 because we believe that pro-life Americans are entitled to know that NRLC’s lobbying efforts aligned with those of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, and resulted in the defeat of this anti-abortion legislation. In our view, such conduct raises important questions about NRLC’s claim to represent the interests of the unborn.

In response to our public statement, NRLC issued a two-page form letter, which confirmed NRLC’s opposition to HB 1191 and defended its decision to oppose this legislative effort to outlaw abortions and directly challenge Roe v. Wade. It is necessary to provide this additional and more detailed statement because NRLC’s letter misstates the facts of this important matter.

ANSWER TO NRLC’S LETTER

The Time is Not Right

In its response, NRLC admits to speaking with one state senator whom they do not name. The unnamed state senator is Jay Duenwald, a board member of the NRLC Educational Trust Fund, and the leading opponent of the abortion ban legislation (HB 1191). Senator Duenwald actively lobbied pro-life legislators on behalf of NLRC and South Dakota Right to Life (SDRTL) to oppose the bill.

From the very beginning of this process, Senator Duenwald argued that HB1191 should be rejected because it was untimely. Senator Duenwald was quoted by Bob Mercer, reporter for the State Capitol Bureau as saying “It would be a good bill if the timing was right. The timing is just flat wrong.” Likewise, The Los Angeles Times, February 29, 2004 article, describing HB 1191 as the nation’s most far-reaching ban on abortions reported “….[The] National Right to Life Committee, a leading anti-abortion group says it’s too soon to attempt an all-out abortion ban.”

It has been 31 years and over 40,000,000 unborn babies killed, and NRLC says it is not the right time to directly challenge Roe v. Wade.

The Thomas More Law Center believes that this assertion concerning “untimeliness” is speculative and shortsighted. Nobody, including NRLC, can predict how the Court may rule, or who may be on the Court in the future. Indeed, a legal challenge in South Dakota would probably have taken several years to reach the highest court. Given the fact that changes in the make-up of the Supreme Court are widely anticipated, South Dakota’s timing might have been perfect. In contrast, the “wait and see” approach with regard to the make-up of the Supreme Court is simply unreasonable. What if changes in the Court are for the worse? What if a certain pro-life majority on the Supreme Court does not come about for another 31 years? Can we afford to wait?

NRLC’s claim that HB 1191 was untimely is fatuous for another reason: South Dakota’s effort was unique both in form and substance. The proposed legislation would have presented the Court with several very significant findings. These findings included the considerable advances in medical science which definitively establish that life begins at conception. In addition, the case would have presented the Court with unprecedented evidence concerning the harm to women caused by abortion, a stated basis for banning abortion that was supported by studies and world-class experts who had agreed to testify in support of the legislation. The extensive basis for the legislative findings may well have convinced some of the Justices that the ban on abortion was justified given the record of harm to women and children that has followed from its decision in Roe v. Wade. Thus, it is highly presumptuous for NRLC to conclude that the case was destined to lose.

More fundamentally, TMLC disagrees with NRLC’s defeatism with regard to the Supreme Court. We believe that efforts to challenge the Roe v. Wade decision should not be dismissed simply because some pro-life strategists believe the Court is not ready. The challenge to Roe posed by South Dakota HB 1191 would have forced the Court to again confront its lawless decision. The case would have thrust the abortion issue into the national spotlight, and would have created the public pressure and political momentum that any successful repeal of Roe will require.

Here it is instructive to consider the tactics of the homosexual interest groups. Recently, many homosexual activists argued that it was a mistake to bring a constitutional challenge to Texas laws barring homosexual sodomy because it was unlikely that the Supreme Court would reverse its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, a 1986 decision which held that there was no constitutional right to homosexual sodomy. But we all know what happened in that case. Just last year, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law, overruling a decision it rendered just 17 years ago. Now homosex

ACLU, University of Michigan, Wayne State University Team Up to Fight Law Center in Ann Arbor Same-Sex Marriage Battle
Wed, Dec 3, 2003

ANN ARBOR – The ACLU, University of Michigan, and Wayne State University have requested permission to file briefs in support of public funding of insurance benefits to same-sex partners. Their requests were made in an effort to support the Ann Arbor Public Schools, which was sued by the Thomas More Law Center for providing insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees.

The Thomas More Law Center filed its lawsuit in September on behalf of 17 Michigan residents claiming that providing insurance benefits to same sex partners is an attempt to institutionalize same- sex marriage in violation of Michigan’s Defense of Marriage Act. The Act passed in 1996 defines marriage as “inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman,” and maintains that the state “has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting that unique relationship.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center questioned the use of public funds by universities to advance the homosexual agenda. “The people of Michigan should be outraged that their hard earned money paid out in taxes is being used to fund the homosexual agenda in their state. Despite the clear will of the people of Michigan, today’s cultural elites are determined to shove same-sex marriage down our throats and force taxpayers to pay for it.”

Thompson continued, “The Ann Arbor Public School’s same–sex domestic partnership has all the trappings of marriage except the title. It is an incremental strategy to legitimize same sex marriages contrary to Michigan’s Defense of Marriage Act, and we intend to stop it.”

In addition to the ACLU, University of Michigan, and Wayne State University, the court will hear requests from the Women’s Law Association and the Washtenaw County Medical Society, all of whom support the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Washtenaw County Circuit Judge David Swartz will hear arguments Wednesday, December 3rd at 4:30 PM.

The lawsuit is just one of several related efforts by the Thomas More Law Center to defend traditional marriage and block homosexual activists from acquiring the benefits of marriage that would result in the de-facto legalization of same-sex marriage. The Center has worked to stop transsexual marriage in Kansas, homosexual adoption in Nebraska, and is involved in major legal battles over the rights of students and faith based organizations to reject homosexual demands for recognition of their lifestyles and unions.

 

Federal Judge Compares School’s Censorship of Christian Student During Homosexual Diversity Week to Actions of Nazi Germany
Wed, Nov 26, 2003

ANN ARBOR – Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen likened the censorship of a Christian student at Ann Arbor, Michigan Pioneer High School during its 2002 Diversity Week program to the censorship practiced by Nazi Germany. The judge’s comments were made during a scheduled hearing in a federal lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, on behalf of student Betsy Hansen whose religious views against homosexuality were censored and excluded from the program.

According to the Detroit Free Press, during Monday’s hearing Judge Rosen asked the school’s attorney “Isn’t this cultural hegemony, where you’re only going to present one view to the exclusion of others?” Don’t you think that smacks of government and religious totalitarianism?” “Isn’t that how we got to book burning in Nazi Germany back in the 1930’s,” asked Rosen.

During the 2002 Diversity Week program, Pioneer High School officials prevented Hansen from expressing her Roman Catholic view on homosexuality at the “Homosexuality and Religion” panel. School officials claimed that Betsy’s religious view toward homosexuality was a “negative” message and would “water-down” the “positive” religious message that they wanted to convey—that homosexual behavior is not immoral or sinful.

Only religious leaders who endorsed the school’s pro-homosexual “religious” belief were allowed to sit on the panel. School officials denied Hansen’s request to have a panel member who would express the Roman Catholic belief on homosexual activity.
School officials hand-picked the pro-homosexual panel members, selected the Gay Straight Alliance faculty advisor to act as “moderator,” prohibited “open” questions to panel members, and expressly prohibited the students from personally interacting with any panel member before, during, or after the panel discussion.

The federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center alleges that school officials violated Hansen’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the equal protection of the law. Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that school officials coerced students to accept the religious belief that homosexual activity is not immoral or sinful.

A ruling on this case is expected within the next few weeks.

 

Law Center Sues to Stop Taxpayer Funding of Same-Sex Benefits in Michigan
Mon, Sep 22, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – Claiming that the Ann Arbor Public School District’s contract with employees providing for insurance benefits to same sex partners is an attempt to institutionalize same sex marriages contrary to Michigan law, the Thomas More Law Center today filed a lawsuit to prevent any public funds to pay for such insurance benefits.

The lawsuit, filed in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court, asks the court to prohibit the District from using tax dollars to fund same-sex partner benefits and will test whether Michigan’s Defense of Marriage Act is more than simply a symbolic piece of legislation.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center, “The purpose of this lawsuit is to stop these counterfeit marriages. The Supreme Court’s recent decision creating a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy does not mean that Michigan taxpayers must recognize or subsidize these relationships. Citizens must recognize that the homosexual movement is not about ending discrimination, but a major transformation of society by abolishing the traditional concept of marriage.”

In 2001, the Ann Arbor Public Schools Board, the County Prosecutor, the Department of Education, and the Attorney General were asked to rescind the contract as a violation of state public policy. No action was taken by any of these entities. As a result, the Thomas More Law Center decided to file the lawsuit on behalf of several taxpayers to prevent their tax dollars from being illegally used.

Patrick T. Gillen, Associate Counsel with the Law Center handling the case, indicated that his clients see the lawsuit as an effort to preserve the institution of traditional marriage. Said Gillen, “The school district’s transparent effort to circumvent Michigan’s law defining marriage is unlawful; and all the more unfortunate because these funds should be used to serve the legitimate needs of the district’s students.”

The lawsuit is just one of several related efforts by the Thomas More Law Center to defend traditional marriage and block homosexual activists from acquiring the benefits of marriage that would result in the de-facto legalization of same-sex marriage. The Center has worked to stop transsexual marriage in Kansas, homosexual adoption in Nebraska, and is involved in major legal battles over the rights of students and faith based organizations to reject homosexual demands for recognition of their lifestyles and unions.

The Thomas More Law Center defends the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through litigation, education, and related activities. The Law Center provides its services at no charge, and depends on individual donations, foundations, and corporations for financial support. The IRS recognizes the Law Center as a 501(c)(3) organization and donations are tax deductible. You may contact the Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit its website at www.thomasmore.org.

 

Pro-Lifer Asks Wisconsin Supreme Court For Right To Enter Clinic To Protect Women From Harm Of Abortion
Mon, Aug 18, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — In a petition filed last week with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, pro-lifer William Goodman is asking the state’s highest court to recognize the common law defense of “necessity,” which would give pro-life demonstrators the right to enter clinic property in order to prevent involuntary or coerced abortions.

The controversial position is based on the common law rule that one is privileged to enter on the property of another if it is or reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent serious harm to a third person. The Wisconsin Constitution expressly preserves the common law until it has been changed by the legislature. Last month the Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled that the “necessity” defense is unavailable in an action to enjoin future trespasses into an abortion clinic. Goodman is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review and reverse this ruling.

Goodman’s attorney, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, stated, “The common law privilege of necessity is a valid defense to a claim of a civil trespass. The Court should recognize this rule of law regardless of its position on abortion. ”

The controversy began in December 2000, when Goodman peacefully entered the Madison Abortion Clinic to help women scheduled for abortions that day. He believed that there were women present who were under duress and had not given their voluntary and informed consent to have an abortion. Shortly after entering the clinic, he was assaulted by a worker and handcuffed by a security guard. Police arrived and escorted him from the building.

Goodman was sued by Meriter Hospital, the landlord of the Madison Abortion Clinic, for trespass. The Thomas More Law Center defended Goodman against the hospital’s attempt to get a “buffer zone” in place that would have kept the pro-life demonstrator more than 100 feet away from the clinic entrance. Goodman counter-sued the hospital and the abortion clinic for assault and battery and received a judgment in his favor against the abortion clinic, its owner, and the worker who attacked him.

An appeal was filed on Goodman’s behalf challenging the trial court’s order that enjoins him from trespassing. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the “necessity” defense was unavailable in Goodman’s case. Goodman is now asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reverse this ruling.

In support of Goodman’s petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Law Center provided sworn testimony of Carol Everett, a former abortion clinic operator. Ms. Everett testified that it was her experience that women were never told the truth about their baby or what might happen to them as a result of the abortion; that women were never given adequate truthful information to make an informed decision about the abortion; and that many women who sought abortions were under duress or coercion to terminate the life of their “unwanted child.”

Based on evidence such as this, the Law Center’s petition argues that if it reasonably appeared necessary for Goodman to enter the Madison Abortion Clinic in order to prevent serious harm to third persons, namely the women and their unborn children who would be harmed by abortion, then the necessity defense should apply regardless of Goodman’s politics or religious beliefs. The Law Center pointed out that any “medical” procedure performed without voluntary and informed consent is a battery under Wisconsin law.

 

Law Center Applauds Vatican’s Opposition to Homosexual Marriages as “Call To Arms”
Thu, Jul 31, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan applauded the Vatican’s opposition to the legal recognition of homosexual unions as a “call to arms”, issued to all persons committed to the common good of society. The Vatican document issued today, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Person” stated that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and grave sins, and admonished Catholic law-makers of their moral duty to publicly oppose laws that favor legal recognition to homosexual unions.

The Vatican document also opposed exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that contribute to the spread of homosexuality.
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The Vatican document issued today is most timely, and demonstrates the importance of the battles now being waged over the issue of homosexuality”.

The Law Center has handled multiple lawsuits across the country aimed at defending traditional marriage, and is currently defending the right of a Michigan public high school student, Betsy Hansen, to speak out against homosexual conduct during her high school’s diversity week program.

“The Supreme Court’s flawed decision in the Lawrence case created a public backlash wholly unexpected by the advocates of same-sex marriage. This public response has revealed that a majority of Americans are not in favor of trashing traditional marriage”, said Thompson.

In recent weeks, homosexual activists have been working overtime, hoping to capitalize on their recent Supreme Court victory in the Lawrence v. Texas case, which recognized a constitutional right to sodomy. Much to their dismay, the heightened interest in the homosexual issue has produced quite the opposite result. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll conducted July 25-27, reveals that acceptance of homosexuality is on the decline. In fact, only 48% percent of respondents believed that “homosexual relations between consenting adults should . . . be legal, “ compared with the poll taken earlier this year in which 60% responded in the affirmative.

The document, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reiterated the Church’s constant teaching on the meaning and purpose of traditional marriage, while underscoring the grave moral duty of Catholic politicians to publicly oppose and vote against proposals to recognize homosexual unions.

Special Session of Palm Beach Town Council Refuses Nativity Request
Tue, Dec 23, 2003

ANN ARBOR – The Town of Palm Beach, Florida will not allow the public display of the Christmas Nativity alongside existing Jewish Menorahs on Town property. In a special session of the Town Council held Tuesday morning, Town officials declined to vote on a request to allow Nativity displays alongside town-sanctioned Menorahs.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center that filed a federal lawsuit last week against the Town expressed his disbelief at the Town’s continued arrogance. “The Town of Palm Beach has refused for months to review requests to display the Christian Nativity, and now under pressure from a federal judge has again refused to rule on the request.”

Thompson emphasized that requests made by residents have specifically asked for the Christian Nativity to appear equally alongside the Jewish Menorahs. “Our clients have requested from the beginning to have the Nativity displayed alongside the approved Menorahs. The double standard used by the Town is as shocking as it is offensive.”

The decision by the Town Council comes a week after a federal lawsuit was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Palm Beach residents Maureen Donnell and Fern deNarvaez. The lawsuit alleged that the Town of Palm Beach is discriminating against Christians by refusing to allow the Christian Nativity to be displayed alongside the Menorahs. Town officials have repeatedly refused to review requests to display the Nativity, and held the session Tuesday only after being compelled by a federal judge.

 

Brief Filed in Supreme Court Argues Pledge is Constitutional
Thu, Dec 18, 2003

ANN ARBOR – Urging the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional, the Thomas More Law Center filed a brief today with the Supreme Court arguing that the Pledge acknowledges our nation’s rich religious heritage and encourages continuing recognition of the idea of God-given freedom. The brief was filed on behalf of the Catholic League, the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization.

In its brief the Law Center argues that the phrase “under God” acknowledges the undeniable religious belief regarding God-given freedom, the very principle that unites Americans as a people. This ongoing acknowledgement, the brief argues, “serves a beneficial secular purpose and is completely compatible with the Establishment Clause.”

Assisting in the brief was the Law Offices of Charles S. LiMandri, the Law Center’s western regional office in Rancho Santa Fe, California.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “The court decision to abolish the Pledge of Allegiance signifies perhaps more clearly than any other case the relentless effort to eliminate all forms of religious expression from our public life. Our brief makes clear that the people of this country are not going to allow the public acknowledgement of the very heart and principle of our nation to be destroyed.”

 

Federal Judge Orders Town of Palm Beach To Rule On Nativity Display
Wed, Dec 17, 2003

ANN ARBOR – Federal Judge Daniel Hurley issued an order Tuesday afternoon asking the Town of Palm Beach to explain why he should not force them to rule upon the multiple requests from two residents to display a Nativity scene. Citing a federal case that held constitutional Free Speech rights could be violated by inaction, the judge indicated that the refusal by Town officials to respond to multiple requests by two Palm Beach residents poses constitutional questions that must be resolved. Palm Beach has been given until Thursday at 5:00 PM to submit their response.

Judge Hurley’s order came in response to a federal lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, alleging that the Town of Palm Beach is discriminating against Christian residents who have requested to have a nativity scene displayed. Palm Beach has permitted the public display of Jewish Menorahs at various prominent public locations, but Town officials have repeatedly refused to review requests to have Christian Nativity scenes displayed alongside the Menorahs.

The lawsuit alleges, the Town’s inaction demonstrates hostility toward Christians, and impermissibly conveys the message of disapproval of the Christian faith. The suit also alleges that the Town has unconstitutionally deprived the plaintiffs of their right to freedom of speech and equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution. An immediate temporary restraining order has been sought that would allow a nativity scene to be erected on Town property in the same manner as the Menorah displays.

 

Exclusive Palm Beach, Florida Sued in Federal Court For Discrimination- Allows Jewish Menorahs, But Not Christian Nativity
Mon, Dec 15, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — Refusal by the exclusive Town of Palm Beach, Florida to allow the display of Christian Nativity scenes even though they allow the Jewish Menorah to be displayed on public property has prompted a federal lawsuit by two of its residents against the Town and its officials. The lawsuit was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Maureen Donnell and Fern deNarvaez.

Donnell and deNarvaez, both residents of Palm Beach, seek an immediate temporary restraining order that would allow a nativity scene to be erected on Town property in the same manner as the two Menorah displays.

The lawsuit filed Monday morning alleges that for the past two years the Town of Palm Beach has permitted the public display of Jewish Menorahs at various prominent public locations, and that Town officials have repeatedly refused to review requests to have Christian Nativity scenes displayed alongside the Menorahs. This policy and practice, the suit alleges, demonstrates hostility toward Christians, and impermissibly conveys the message of disapproval of the Christian faith. The suit also alleges that the Town has unconstitutionally deprived the plaintiffs of their right to freedom of speech and equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution.

As early as September of this year, Palm Beach resident Fern deNarvaez requested that the Town permit a privately financed display of a Christian Nativity scene to be displayed with the Menorahs. In addition, resident Maureen Donnell made four subsequent requests in October and November, finally requesting that the Town respond by December 1st. Town officials did not respond to these requests.

In a statement issued Monday morning Donnell indicated, “It is not our intention to remove the Menorahs, but to have a Christmas Nativity scene equally displayed alongside the Menorahs to acknowledge the celebration of Christmas. The refusal to review my repeated requests is discriminatory and an insult to every Christian in this town.”

Plaintiff deNarvaez was equally disturbed by the Town’s inaction. “The Nativity scene represents the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated by Christians around the world. I simply cannot accept this double standard being applied to the Christmas holiday.”
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center that filed the lawsuit commented, “By refusing to respond to the repeated requests of its residents, the Town of Palm Beach has demonstrated a hostility towards Christianity during one of its holiest seasons. Christian residents of Palm Beach are being denied the right to express their religious message in a public forum that is open to other religious faiths, and the Thomas More Law Center has filed this lawsuit to stop this injustice. This is but another example of the national movement to remove Christ from Christmas.”

The Law Center filed a similar lawsuit last year against the New York City public school system whose written policy permits students to display the Jewish Menorah, and the Islamic Star and Crescent, but prohibits students from displaying Christmas Nativity scenes. A ruling on that case is expected soon.

 

Federal Judge: Public Schools Cannot Discriminate Against Christian View on Homosexuality
Mon, Dec 8, 2003

ANN ARBOR – In a strongly worded opinion issued late Friday, Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen upheld the right of a Christian student to express her religious beliefs in opposition to homosexuality during her high school’s “Diversity Week” program that was designed to promote the homosexual agenda. The case involved a federal lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, on behalf of student Betsy Hansen whose religious views against homosexuality were censored and excluded from the 2002 “Diversity Week” program held at Ann Arbor’s Pioneer High School.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, applauded the opinion. “Judge Rosen displayed judicial courage by refusing to bend to the winds of political correctness, and he decided the case according to the well established law. This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment rights of Christian students and a tremendous defeat for those who consider public schools as their private platform to advance the homosexual agenda.”

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling this case, commented, “This is a victory for Christian students who desire to speak the truth about homosexuality in their public schools. And it is a warning to public school officials across this country: stop silencing the Christian view of homosexuality and stop using the public schools as a forum to promote the homosexual agenda.”

During the 2002 Diversity Week program, Pioneer High School officials prevented Hansen from expressing her Roman Catholic view on homosexuality at the “Homosexuality and Religion” panel, and they censored a speech she was asked to give on the topic, “What Diversity Means to Me.” School officials claimed that Betsy’s religious view toward homosexuality was a “negative” message and would “water-down” the “positive” religious message that they wanted to convey—that homosexual behavior is not immoral or sinful. School officials handpicked religious leaders who endorsed the school’s pro-homosexual “religious” belief to sit on the panel, and they denied Hansen’s request to have a panel member who would express the Roman Catholic belief on homosexuality.

Judge Rosen’s 70-page opinion began with blistering criticism of the school:

“This case presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating ‘diversity’ by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an ‘unwelcomed’ viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view. This practice of ‘one-way diversity,’ unsettling in itself, was rendered still more troubling—both constitutionally and ethically—by the fact that the approved viewpoint was, in one manifestation, presented to students as religious doctrine by six clerics (some in full garb) quoting from religious scripture. In its other manifestation, it resulted in the censorship by school administrators of a student’s speech about ‘what diversity means to me,’ removing that portion of the speech in which the student described the unapproved viewpoint.”

“All of this, of course, raises the question, among others presented here, of what ‘diversity’ means and whether a school may promote one view of ‘diversity’ over another. Even accepting that the term ‘diversity’ has evolved in recent years to mean, at least colloquially, something more than the dictionary definition, the notion of sponsorship of one viewpoint to the exclusion of another hardly seems to further the school’s purported objective of ‘celebrating diversity.’ In this context, it would do well to recall the Supreme Court’s admonition in another school speech case:
In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. . . [and] students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved.” (quoting from Tinker v. DesMoines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969)).

The federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center alleged that school officials violated Hansen’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the equal protection of the law. Moreover, the lawsuit alleged that school officials coerced students to accept the religious belief that homosexual activity is not immoral or sinful in violation of the constitution.

Judge Rosen held that the Ann Arbor Public Schools and several of its employees violated Hansen’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the equal protection of the law. He also concluded that the school officials violated the Establishment Clause by inviting the pro-gay clergy to hold a panel on “Homosexuality and Religion.” Rosen instructed Hansen’s attorneys to file with the court an application for attorneys’ fees, which could cost the Ann Arbor Public Schools up to $100,000.

 

Religious Freedom of Students At Stake as Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Scholarship Case
Tue, Dec 2, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments today in a significant case involving the religious freedom of college students who receive state scholarships. The case grew out of a dispute between Joshua Davey, the recipient of a state scholarship, and the state of Washington after Davey chose Pastoral Ministry as a double major along with Business Management/Administration. Because he chose to study Pastoral Ministry, Davey was stripped of his state scholarship.

The Thomas More Law Center filed a brief in support of Davey because it is involved in a similar case pending against Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm on behalf of Ave Maria College student Teresa M. Becker. Becker, who had been receiving financial assistance through Michigan’s Competitive Scholarship Program for the past two years, was stripped of that scholarship when she declared a major in Theology. At issue in the Michigan case is a state statute that expressly prohibits distribution of scholarship funds to students who major in “theology, divinity or religious education”. A federal district judge ruled in July that Michigan’s law constitutes “unlawful viewpoint discrimination” and that Becker will likely win her case pending the decision of the Supreme Court in the upcoming Davey case.

The Law Center brief filed in the Davey case with the Supreme Court argued that the State of Washington’s policy wrongly disqualifies students from receiving scholarship funds if they choose to major in theology taught in a way the State of Washington deems unacceptable. The brief further pointed out that this view rests upon an arbitrary and perverse assumption that the few thousand dollars a student receives will be used to pay for Theology instruction—as opposed to the countless secular expenses a student incurs in pursuing their undergraduate degree.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Law Center attorney who authored the brief observed, “Essentially, the State of Washington creates a perverse and irrebuttable presumption that students like Davey will use their scholarship funds to pay for Theology instruction in order to justify its claim that providing scholarships to students like Davey constitutes unlawful state support for religion. Washington’s policy, like Michigan’s, blatantly violates the constitutional rights of religious students by allowing the state to discriminate against them when they choose to study religion.”

 

Law Center Applauds Justice Roy Moore As a Man of Conscience and Courage Despite Panel Ruling
Thu, Nov 13, 2003

ANN ARBOR – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan announced its unwavering support of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, despite the fact that a court panel votedto remove him from office. The nine-member Court of the Judiciary based its ruling on the failure of Justice Moore to obey a federal judge ordering him to remove the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel commented shortly after the decision to remove him from office was announced. “Justice Roy Moore is a profile in courage, and should be commended for his refusal to compromise his conscience. Today’s outrageous decision is an illustration of how far established authority has come in tearing down the religious foundations of our nation. It is shameful that the panel based its decision on the argument that man ‘is a creature of the law.’ That may very well be why the panel was so upset with Justice Moore’s acknowledgement of God. Today’s ruling demands that citizens in private and public law must unquestionably follow the decrees of the court, without regard to the dictates of conscience. Hopefully Justice Moore appeals this unjust decision.”

The Thomas More Law Center had filed briefs on behalf of Justice Moore in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and recently in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of his public display of the Ten Commandments.

 

Birth of Jesus Denied By New York School System to Justify Ban on Christmas Nativity Displays
Tue, Nov 11, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI — The historical fact of the birth of Jesus was denied by the New York School system in pleadings filed with a federal court to justify their total ban on Christmas Nativity displays in New York’s public schools. New York’s legal briefs disputed the claim that the Nativity scene depicts a historical event, and that this event is the basis for the celebration of Christmas.

At issue in the federal lawsuit filed last year by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is New York’s policy on religious displays, which prohibits public school displays of Christmas Nativity scenes, while at the same time encouraging the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during their respective holidays. Federal Judge Sifton will hear oral arguments this week on the Law Center’s motion to temporarily restrain the City from enforcing its ban on Nativity scenes.

Pursuant to the policy, City schools display the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic star and crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan, but not the Nativity scene during Christmas. One public school principal issued a memo encouraging teachers to bring to school “religious symbols” that represent the Islamic and Jewish religions. No mention of Christianity was made in this memo. At times, teachers would have students make the Jewish Menorahs that would often adorn the halls of the schools as part of the “authorized” displays. However, the students were not allowed to make and similarly display Nativity scenes. When a parent wrote to her son’s teacher to complain about this, the teacher responded by sending the parent a copy of the school’s “Holiday Displays” policy.

The federal civil rights lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrea Skoros and her two children, who are both elementary school students in the New York City schools, against the City of New York and several school officials. Ms. Skoros and her children are devout Roman Catholics.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case observed, “This case will decide whether public school officials can enforce a policy that shows preference for Judaism and Islam, but disfavors Christianity. Can Christianity be erased from a public school? Can “Christ” be removed from Christmas? We will soon find out.”

According to the Law Center’s motion, New York’s policy promotes the Jewish and Islamic faiths while conveying the impermissible message of disapproval of Christianity in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The hearing on the motion is scheduled for Thursday, November 13, 2003, in the federal court in Brooklyn.

In December 2001 and again in 2002, Catholic League president William Donohue attempted to get school officials to change their discriminatory policy, with no success. School officials dismissed requests to display the Nativity scene and instead would only allow Christmas trees, erroneously claiming that Supreme Court precedent prohibited them from including the Nativity scene as part of their holiday displays.

Remarkably, schools officials permit the display of the Jewish Menorah and Islamic star and crescent, claiming that these are “secular” symbols.

According to Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel and President of the Thomas More Law Center, “New York City’s policy seeks to de-Christianize Christmas and redefine our Nation’s religious heritage. The Thomas More Law Center is determined to protect the important celebration of Christmas from such discrimination and censorship. ”

 

Supreme Court Rejection of Ten Commandments Case Reveals Court Hostility Towards Religion
Mon, Nov 3, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore concerning the public display of the Ten Commandments was greeted with disapproval and disappointment by the Thomas More Law Center. The news of the rejection of the highly publicized case was announced early Monday without comment from the Court.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, expressed his disappointment shortly after the court announced its decision. “The Supreme Court has once again demonstrated its hostility towards religion and missed an opportunity to clear up confusing lower court decisions dealing with the public display of the Ten Commandments. Not only is the Court disregarding the plain text of the Constitution, the intent of our Founding Fathers, and the history of our nation, but by its action is disregarding the very words of our Declaration of Independence, which acknowledges that we are a nation under God. We as a nation will pay the penalty for the Court turning its back on God.”

In its brief filed with the Supreme Court, Law Center attorneys argued that the attack on the Ten Commandments is based on the 1980 Supreme Court case of Stone v. Graham, holding unconstitutional a Kentucky law that required posting of the Ten Commandments on public school walls. In reaching its “cavalier” opinion, the Court did not have the benefit of briefs or oral argument. Yet lower federal courts have used this decision to remove Ten Commandment monuments throughout the nation. To date, the Supreme Court has not decided a case involving the Ten Commandments outside of a public school context.

“We remain undaunted, and will continue to work aggressively to defend the Ten Commandments until the Court gets it right,” continued Thompson. “This battle is far from over.”

 

Law Center Files Brief With Supreme Court Supporting Justice Moore In Ten Commandments Fight
Thu, Oct 23, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, announced today that it has filed a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore petitioning the court to review the historic case involving the public display of the Ten Commandments. The Court is expected to announce its decision on whether it will hear the case on Monday, November 3rd.

The brief argued that the attack on the Ten Commandments is based on the 1980 Supreme Court case of Stone v. Graham, holding unconstitutional a Kentucky law that required posting of the Ten Commandments on public school walls. In reaching its “cavalier” opinion, the Court did not have the benefit of briefs or oral argument. Yet lower federal courts have used this decision to remove Ten Commandment monuments throughout the nation.

To date, the Supreme Court has not decided a case involving the Ten Commandments outside of a public school context.

Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Law Center commented, “Justice Moore’s fight over the monument is symbolic of a much larger battle over the future of religion in America. His act of courage in refusing to remove the monument has awakened Americans to the hostility towards Christianity and the religious heritage we are being forced to abandon.”

“The injustice being perpetrated against Christians, and the denial of the historic role of Christianity in this country is disgraceful,” continued Thompson. “The Ten Commandments have always been considered fundamental to the development of morality and law in this country. Yet groups such as the ACLU have worked recklessly to dismantle that tradition. It’s time for the Court to set the record straight.”

 

ACLU Flip Flops — Admits Florida Ten Commandments Are Constitutional
Wed, Oct 8, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – Just two days after the Thomas More Law Center publicly vowed to defend Polk County, Florida’s display of the Ten Commandments against a threatened ACLU lawsuit, the ACLU’s Tampa Chapter reversed itself Friday announcing they will not mount a legal challenge.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center personally addressed a public meeting of the Polk County Commissioners last Wednesday, denouncing threats of a lawsuit by the ACLU. Thompson offered the legal assistance of the Law Center, without charge, promising that no taxpayer funds would be expended in defending the monument.

In an October 2001 statement on the Polk County monument, Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida claimed that, “the Ten Commandments is a religious text, and regardless of how it is displayed, it is not constitutionally appropriate.” Despite Howard’s statement and similar statements from other ACLU officials, ACLU representatives were quoted in the October 3rd issue of the Orlando Sentinel as saying they would not challenge the monument. In his acknowledgment that the ACLU would not take on the monument, Simon reversed himself conceding, “context is everything.”

Richard Thompson, the Law Center’s Chief Counsel, stated “The Polk County Commissioners are to be commended for their refusal to capitulate to the attempted intimidation by the ACLU. Too often governmental entities succumb to ACLU demands to remove their Ten Commandments displays because of the financial costs involved in defending a lawsuit. The ACLU was called on their bluff by Polk County, and they surrendered.”

Thompson further noted, “If the ACLU believed they could have won in court, they would have filed a lawsuit already. Their decision is proof that displays of the Ten Commandments are legally protected by our Constitution, and municipalities should not be intimidated by the ACLU’s baseless threats.”

 

Law Center Chief Denounces ACLU Threats Against Ten Commandments Monument in Polk County, Florida
Wed, Oct 1, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center personally addressed a public meeting of the Polk County, Florida Commissioners on Wednesday, October 1st denouncing threats of a lawsuit by the ACLU concerning the County’s new American Heritage Foundation Rock monument. Thompson offered the legal assistance of the Center, without charge, promising that no taxpayer funds would be expended in defending the monument, which contains an inscription of the Ten Commandments as a part of its display.

The County’s American Heritage Foundation Rock was unveiled during a special patriotic ceremony on September 11, 2003, marking the two-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. In addition to the Ten Commandments, the monument contains excerpts from the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Florida Constitution, and other historic documents.

In his brief statement to the County Board of Commissioners, Thompson argued that the ACLU has absolutely no justification for its opposition to the monument. “If any public display of the Ten Commandments is constitutional, this one is it,” said Thompson, noting that the inscription of the Ten Commandments is displayed in historical context with other documents.

Thompson applauded the county’s courageous decision to install the monument despite ACLU threats of suing both the county and individual commissioners. “Our government is not of the ACLU, by the ACLU, and for the ACLU,” he said. “We must not allow the ACLU to implement their anti-religious agenda by use of legal intimidation and financial threats.”

Thompson was invited to address the Commissioners by County Chairman Randy Wilkinson after the Law Center offered to help defend the new monument without charge. Commissioner Wilkinson noted that the Law Center was founded and is funded in part by the Ave Maria Foundation, established by Thomas S. Monaghan, former head of Domino’s Pizza and the Detroit Tigers, which holds its spring training in nearby Lakeland, Florida. Monaghan is well known and respected by Polk County citizens because of his history with the Tigers, as well as his announcement earlier this year of plans to build a new Catholic university and adjoining town just outside Naples.

 

Law Center Acclaims New Limbaugh Book, “Persecution”
Fri, Sep 26, 2003

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI today praised the newly released book by David Limbaugh, “Persecution – How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity,” as a wake-up call to the assault on Christianity by America’s cultural elite.

The 416 page book chronicles the growing hostility towards Christianity with evidence, facts, and a remarkable collection of examples of censorship, discrimination, and all out war on Christian believers and values in America. In a word — Persecution.

Beginning with our nation’s Founders and recounting the early history of our nation, Limbaugh correctly explains how the First Amendment has been misinterpreted and misapplied in such a way that Christianity is often assumed to be dangerous, if not illegal. Citing egregious examples from across the country, including several cases handled by the Thomas More Law Center, Limbaugh demonstrates how our cultural elites are working overtime,