Slide 1 Holiday Decorations, Public Property, and the Law November 12, 2013 Conference resources available on the main streaming product page. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Slide 2 2 Today’s Speakers Katherine M. Swenson, Attorney, Green Espel P.L.L.P. John M. Baker, Partner Greene Espel, Minneapolis ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Slide 3 Today’s Speakers Christopher C. Lund, Associate Professor of Law, Wayne State University Law School Molly Stuart, Moderator, Editor, Planning & Environmental Law, American Planning Association 3 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________
Transcript
Slide 1
Holiday Decorations, Public Property, and the Law
November 12, 2013
Conference resources available on the main streaming product page.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 2
2
Today’s Speakers
Katherine M. Swenson, Attorney,
Green Espel P.L.L.P.
John M. Baker, Partner
Greene Espel, Minneapolis
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 3 Today’s Speakers
Christopher C. Lund, Associate Professor of Law, Wayne State University Law School
Molly Stuart, Moderator, Editor, Planning & Environmental Law, American Planning Association
3
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 4
THE FREE EXERCISE AND ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSES
4
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 5
The First Amendment’s religion clauses:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”
Kate:
5
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 6 The Establishment Clause
Government cannot:
Set up a religion
Subsidize religion
Prefer one religion over others
Favor the idea of religion over no religion
Kate:
6
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 7 The Free Exercise Clause
Government cannot prevent individuals from:
Exercising their religious beliefs
Speaking out about religious issues
Kate:
7
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 8 Together, the clauses require:
Neutrality
No interference with religion
No endorsement of religion
Kate:
8
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 9 Holiday decorations
Both clauses in play:Does government favor religion when it
displays holiday decorations (or allows them to be displayed) on public property?
(Establishment Clause)
Does government interfere with individuals’ religious conduct/speech when it regulates the display of holiday decorations?
(Free Exercise Clause)
Kate:
9
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 10 The Supreme Court Cases:
(1) Lynch v. Donnelly,465 U.S. 668 (1984)
(2) County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
(3) Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)
Chris:
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 11
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
Nativity Scene Together WithMany Non-Religious
Symbols = Constitutional
Chris:
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 12 Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
The three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971):
(1) Does the government action have a secular purpose?
(2) Does the government action have a principally secular effect?
(3) Does the government action cause excessive entanglement with religion?
Chris:
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 13
County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989)
(1) Nativity Scene Standing Alone = Unconstitutional
(2) Christmas Tree Together With a Menorah = Constitutional
Chris:
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 14
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette (1995)
Chris:
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 15
The controversial decoration:
Crèche
The context:
Road-median setting
Sign: “A Blessed Christmas, St. Anne Parish”
Plaque: “In Memory of Joseph and Rose Satawa”
Farm equipment
Gazebo and historical marker
Satawa v. Macomb County Road CommissionKate:
15
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 16 Satawa v. Macomb County Road Commission
Result?
The government violated Satawa’sfree-exercise rights by denying his display application.
Kate:
16
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 17 The controversial decoration:
Menorah
The context: Municipal funds, labor, and equipment
used to transport, set up, light, and dismantle the menorah
Public sidewalk in front of a commercial building
Nearby decorations: Christmas tree, lights, wreaths, garlands, banners, and a star-and-crescent display
Chabad of Mid-Hudson Valley v. City of PoughkeepsieKate:
17
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 18 Chabad of Mid-Hudson Valley v. City of Poughkeepsie
Result?
Display of the menorah = okay
BUT use of municipal resources (funds, labor, equipment) violated Establishment Clause
Kate:
18
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 19
The controversial decoration:
Menorah
AND denial of application for nativity scene
The context:
Public park, near main roadway
Nearby evergreen tree (lighted after dark)
Other holiday decorations in other parts of village
Ritell v. Village of Briarcliff ManorKate:
19
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 20 Ritell v. Village of Briarcliff Manor
Result?
No violation of Free Exercise clause
Establishment Clause was violated Display was “dominated” by religious symbolism
Kate:
20
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 21
The controversial decorations: Denial of request to display a nativity scene and/or
lighted nativity banners
Town’s display (in various contexts) of menorahs and Stars of David
The context (changed over time): Grassy area and state road
Denial of request likely violated Free Exercise clause
Motivated by religious hostility
Denial was not reasonable
Establishment Clause was violated by the earlier displays
Updated displays = okay
Kate:
22
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 23
Lower Court Case:Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. City of Warren, 707 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2013)
(Moral: City had no legal obligation to take FFRF’s atheistic display, because the city had
not established a public forum.)
Chris:
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 24
Religious symbols
• Crèche
• Menorah
• Star of David
• Star and Crescent
• Cross
Non-religious symbols
• Candy canes
• Snowflakes
• Santa Claus
• Reindeer
• Christmas trees
• Poinsettias
What type of religious symbols does the
display involve?
Guidelines and best practices
24
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 25
• What is the context of the display?– Is a religious symbol displayed in isolation?
– Is it “neutralized” by other symbols?
Guidelines and best practices
25
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 26
• How obtrusive is the display?
–How “in your face” is it?
Guidelines and best practices
26
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 27 Guidelines and best practices
• A display is more likely to be constitutional if it:
– Includes a disclaimer
– Includes non-religious signs• “Salute to Liberty!”
– Is “tacky”• Includes a mix of symbols, plastic animals, etc.
• Lynch and the Allegheny menorah display were “tacky”
– Is owned and paid for by a private party
27
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 28 Guidelines and best practices
• Displays put up by individuals on government property:
– If government allows this, it cannot pick and choose.• If it allows a display by a Jewish group and the United Way, it must allow the Ku
Klux Klan.• If it allows a Christian group and a Jewish group, it must allow a Muslim group or an
atheist group.
28
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 29
HOLIDAY DECORATIONS AS “SIGNAGE”
29
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 30 COMMERCIAL VS. NON-COMMERCIAL DISPLAYS
John:
30
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 31 Three basic principles to remember:
• A sign code should not favor commercial speech over noncommercial speech
– Does your code make it at least as easy to fly the Greenpeace flag as it is to put up a development sign? It should.
• Between types of noncommercial speech, your sign regulations should be “content-neutral.”
• Even content-neutral time/place/manner regulations must be reasonable.
31
John:
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 32
CONTENT NEUTRALITY
32
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 33 The need for content neutrality
• Context: “I get to put up my kind of sign, because she gets to put up her reindeer!”
• Judges often disagree about the correct test for what constitutes “content discrimination”– There is a literal test and a pragmatic test
– This term, the Supreme Court might conceivably bless a third test (involving practical effects)
• The test that applies may depend on what judge is randomly assigned to your case
33
John:
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 34
• If this test is used, the judge will ask whether the regulator must look at (or read) what the display “says” in order to determine whether the regulation applies to that display
• Under this test:
– Laws that make distinctions based on subject-matter are vulnerable
– Having an objective unrelated to censorship may not save the regulation
34
John: Content-neutrality: literal test
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 35 Content-neutrality: pragmatic test
• If this test is used, the law will be upheld if any of the following three things are true:
– Is it a regulation of places where some speech may occur, rather than a regulation of speech?
– Was the regulation not adopted because of discrimination with the message the speech conveys?
– Is the government’s interest in the regulation unrelated to the content of the affected speech?
35
John:
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 36 Added twist: Do holiday decorations even have content, or have a message?
• Federal Judge Carnes in Georgia:
– A political sign has content, but “not so, holiday decorations.”
– “Typically, such decorations communicate nothing more about the homeowner’s opinion than that he or she has a sense of whimsy, a communal spirit, and a desire to reconnect with traditions that bind the generations.”
• Kennedy v. Avondale Estates (N.D. Georgia 2005)
John:
36
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 37 Brown v. Town of Cary, North CarolinaJohn:
37
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 38
• City Code’s definition of “sign” excluded holiday decorations and public art
• It defined holiday decorations as “displays erected on a seasonal basis in observance of religious, national, or state holidays which are not intended to be permanent in nature and which contain no advertising material.”
John: Brown v. Town of Cary (cont’d)
38
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 39
• District court uses the literal test for content neutrality, and says the exemptions made the definition of “sign” content based.
– As a result, all sections of the sign code with the word “sign” were content-based, including the laws that the plaintiff’s spray-painted message violated.
John: Brown v. Town of Cary (cont’d)
39
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 40
• Court of Appeals reverses, using the pragmatic test for content neutrality– The “holiday decorations” exclusion is “justified
for reasons independent of content.” • It reasonably advances traffic safety and aesthetics.
– “we think it reasonable to presume that public art and holiday decorations enhance rather than harm aesthetic appeal, and that seasonal holiday displays have a temporary and therefore less significant impact on traffic safety.”
John: Brown v. Town of Cary (cont’d)
40
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 41 Brown v. Town of Cary (cont’d)
• Not all judges would reach the same conclusion, even using the pragmatic test.
– A trial court judge in the same circuit said last month about Brown: “I am unable to see how exceptions for public art and holiday displays reasonably fit Cary’s interests in traffic safety and aesthetics.”
• An alternative justification: the need for de minimis exceptions to regulations.
John:
41
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 42 Solantic LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, Florida
John:
42
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 43
• Plaintiff owned an electronic message center sign that violated the city’s sign code.
• He sued, alleging that content-based exceptions in the sign code made the code unconstitutional.
• Two targets –– an exception allowing holiday lights and
decorations
– an exception allowing religious displays
John: Solantic LLC v. Neptune Beach (cont’d)
43
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 44 Solantic LLC v. Neptune Beach (cont’d)
• This time, the literal test is applied.
• The holiday decorations exemption was deemed content-based.– “a homeowner could plant a giant illuminated
Santa Claus . . . But not a figure of, say, the President or the Mayor.”
• So was the religious display exemption.– “a homeowner could display, year-round, a
manager scene . . . including all of the features of a non-exempt signs . . . .”
John:
44
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 45
REASONABLE TIME / PLACE /
MANNER RESTRICTIONS
45
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 46 Kennedy v. Avondale EstatesJohn:
46
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 47 Kennedy v. Avondale Estates (cont’d)
• The judge didn’t believe holiday displays have content, so found the exemption from the setback requirements content neutral.
• However, it flunked the reasonableness requirements that apply to time-place-manner laws.– “If the City does not wish a sign near its right of
way, because or traffic or visibility concerns, allowing a large Santa near the sidewalk would seem to pose the same problems.”
John:
47
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 48
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE OFFICE SPACES
48
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 49 Office spaces of public employees
• Can public employees have holiday decorations in their cubicle?
– Free exercise
– BUT
• Employer can regulate decorations.
• In some situations, there is a risk of violating the Establishment Clause.
Kate:
49
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 50
• What limits can a public employer set on holiday decorations in the office?
– Viewpoint-neutral
– Fairly enforced
– Focus on factors that could disrupt the workplace:
• Size, volume, flammability, loudness
– Avoiding an endorsement problem
• More on this later
Kate: Office spaces of public employees
50
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 51
• Can employees’ holiday decorations violate the Establishment Clause?
– YES, if the reasonable observer would understand the decorations to be endorsement of religion by the employer, rather than the employee’s personal expression.
– Endorsement is more likely:
• In public-facing work stations (e.g., reception area)
• Or even in a cubicle if the employee interacts there with applicants for public benefits (Berry).
Kate: Office spaces of public employees
51
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 52
THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND RELIGIOUS DISPLAYS
52
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 53
• In private or public housing, it’s possible that intentional religious discrimination can constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act– Bloch v. Frischholz, U.S. 7th Circuit decision from
2009
• This case arose from interference with religious displays on doorways– A condo association enforced its clean-hallway
rules by confiscating mezuzoh on doorways of observant Jewish residents
John: Fair Housing Act discrimination and religious displays
53
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 54 Fair Housing Act discrimination and religious displays
• The Court ruled:– The Fair Housing Act’s ban on discrimination
extends to post-lease or post-purchase discriminatory conduct that makes a dwelling unavailable to the tenant or owner
– Discrimination includes constructive eviction• Enforcing policy had that effect on Jewish residents
– If condo association’s enforcement of hallway rules against religious displays was because of residents’ religion, it would violate the FHA
John:
54
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 55
55
Question & Answer
Katherine M. Swenson, Attorney,
Green Espel P.L.L.P.
John M. Baker, Partner
Greene Espel, Minneapolis
Christopher C. Lund, Associate Professor of Law, Wayne State University Law School
Molly Stuart, Moderator, Editor, Planning & Environmental Law, American Planning Association
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
Slide 56
Holiday Decorations, Public Property, and the Law
November 12, 2013
Conference resources available on the main streaming product page.
