Supreme Court won't hear Utah highway crosses dispute

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday declined to return to the divisive question of when religious symbols are allowed on government property, rejecting a dispute over the placement of large white crosses on Utah roads to commemorate fallen troopers.

Over the lone dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas, the court left in place a lower court decision that said the Utah crosses violated the separation of church and state.

"Today the court rejects an opportunity to provide clarity to an Establishment Clause jurisprudence in shambles," Thomas wrote, referring to the constitutional prohibition against government enacting laws that establish, or endorse, religion.

In an unusually long, 19-page objection to the court's action, Thomas emphasized that lower court judges are split over how to interpret the justices' rules in this area and he expressed sympathy for a Utah patrol association's efforts to memorialize slain officers.

Cases in this area of the law tend to inspire public passion and produce close rulings with complicated legal rationales. As Thomas suggested, the new case would have given the justices a chance to clarify standards for displays of Latin crosses and the Ten Commandments.

The crosses in Utah are 12-feet high, 6-feet wide, and display in black lettering the name of the trooper, badge number, and year of death. The crosses are also marked with the name and beehive symbol of the Utah Highway Patrol.

A group of atheists sued, claiming the placement of symbols of Christianity on public grounds was unconstitutional.

The state said it was not endorsing religion by allowing the Utah Highway Patrol Association to erect the crosses, rather it was memorializing the highway officers who died in the line of duty.

The Utah Legislature, after the lawsuit began, passed a resolution noting that a white cross "has become widely accepted as a symbol of a death, and not a religious symbol, when placed along a highway."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled for the atheists, concluding that the 13 cross memorials could convey to a "reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity."

The appeals court noted that each memorial uses "the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity" and "conspicuously bears the imprimatur of a state entity, the UHP."

"The fact that the cross includes biographical information about the fallen trooper does not diminish the governmental message endorsing Christianity," the appeals court wrote. "This is especially true because a motorist driving by one of the memorial crosses at 55-plus miles per hour may not notice, and certainly would not focus on, the biographical information. The motorist, however, is bound to notice the preeminent symbol of Christianity and the UHP insignia, linking the state to that religious sign."

When the 10th Circuit denied the patrol association's request for a rehearing, dissenting judges who wanted to reconsider the matter said the majority appeared to be trying to purge from the public sphere anything related to religion.

In its appeal to the high court, the Utah Highway Patrol Association urged the court to clarify the rules for determining when a public display might signal endorsement of religion. The association said lower court judges have been particularly confused by the Supreme Court's rationale from a pair of 2005 rulings.

Six years ago, by separate 5-4 decisions, the high court struck down the posting of the Ten Commandments on plaque at two Kentucky courthouses, yet ruled that a granite Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol could stay.

In 2010, a dispute over a cross erected in the Mojave National Preserve came before the justices. While that case did not yield a ruling on the constitutionality of the cross on federal land, a five-justice majority voiced a rationale that could in future cases bolster government's ability to allow religious symbols on public land.

The rejected Utah cases are Utah Highway Patrol Association v. American Atheists and Davenport v. American Atheists.