Kondrat'Yev v. City of Pensacola

Citation903 F.3d 1169
Decision Date07 September 2018
Docket NumberNo. 17-13025,17-13025
Parties Amanda KONDRAT’YEV, Andreiy Kondrat’yev, Andre Ryland, David Suhor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, Ashton Hayward, Mayor, Brian Cooper, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Rebecca S. Markert, Madeline Ziegler, Freedom from Religion Foundation, MADISON, WI, Monica Lynn Miller, David A. Niose, American Humanist Association, WASHINGTON, DC, Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Luke William Goodrich, Joseph Charles Davis, Lori Halstead Windham, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, WASHINGTON, DC, James Nixon Daniel, Terrie Lee Didier, Beggs & Lane, RLLP, PENSACOLA, FL, Jack Wes Gay, Allen Norton & Blue, PA, TALLAHASSEE, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.

Richard Douglas Klingler, Sidley Austin, LLP, International Municipal Lawyers Association, WASHINGTON, DC, for Amicus Curiae INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION.

Matthew James Clark, Foundation for Moral Law, MONTGOMERY, AL, for Amicus Curiae FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW, INC.

Jacob Roth, Jones Day, WASHINGTON, DC, for Amici Curiae JEWS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, AGUDATH ISRAEL OF AMERICA, COALITION FOR JEWISH VALUES, THE RABBINICAL COUNCIL OF AMERICA, UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA.

Andrew Lynn Brasher, Alabama Attorney General's Office, MONTGOMERY, AL, for Amici Curiae STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OF FLORIDA, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF INDIANA, STATE OF KANSAS, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF MISSOURI, STATE OF NEBRASKA, STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, STATE OF OHIO, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF UTAH.

Allen Ryan Paulsen, Haynes & Boone, LLP, DALLAS, TX, for Amicus Curiae JUNIOR CHAMBER INTERNATIONAL FLORIDA.

Richard Brian Katskee, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, WASHINGTON, DC, for Amici Curiae AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF FLORIDA, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, CENTER FOR INQUIRY, CENTRAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN RABBIS, HADASSAH, THE WOMEN'S ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA, INC., JEWISH SOCIAL POLICY ACTION NETWORK, MUSLIM ADVOCATES, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, SIKH COALITION, UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM, WOMEN OF REFORM JUDAISM.

Before NEWSOM and HULL, Circuit Judges, and ROYAL,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The City of Pensacola, Florida appeals a district court decision ordering it to remove a 34-foot Latin cross from a public park on the ground that the City’s maintenance of the cross violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Having concluded that we are bound by existing Circuit precedent, we find ourselves constrained to affirm.

I

The pertinent facts are undisputed. In 1941, the National Youth Administration erected a wooden cross in the eastern corner of Pensacola’s Bayview Park to be the "focal point" of what would become an annual Easter sunrise program. The program itself was organized by the Pensacola Junior Chamber of Commerce (a/k/a the "Jaycees") and soon became a tradition, with people gathering for Easter services during World War II to pray, among other things, for "the divine guidance of our nation’s leaders" and for faith to "see through the present dark days of war." The services continued following the war, and in 1949 the Jaycees built a small stage—or "bandstand"—immediately in front of the cross to serve as a permanent home for the annual program.

In 1969, the Jaycees replaced the original wooden cross with the 34-foot concrete version at issue in this appeal. The new cross was dedicated at the 29th annual Easter sunrise service. The Jaycees donated the cross to the City, which continues to light and maintain it at a cost of around $233 per year. Although the cross is only one of more than 170 monuments scattered throughout Pensacola’s parks, it is one of only two—and the only religious display—located in Bayview Park. Over the years, the cross has continued to serve as the location for an annual Easter sunrise program, but it has also been used as a site for remembrance services on Veteran’s and Memorial Days, at which attendees place flowers near the cross in honor of loved ones overseas and in memory of those who died fighting in service of the country.

The Bayview Park cross stood in the same location for nearly 75 years, essentially without incident, before the plaintiffs in this case filed suit asserting that the cross’s presence on city property violates the Establishment Clause. The parties filed dueling summary judgment motions, and the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and ordered the cross removed. This is the City’s appeal.1

II

In relevant part, the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." U.S. Const. amend. I. Although by its terms the Establishment Clause applies only to Congress, and although available historical evidence indicates that it was originally understood as a federalism-based provision designed to prevent the federal government from interfering with state and local decisions about church-state relations, the Supreme Court has since made clear that, as "incorporated" through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Clause protects individual rights against state and local interference. See, e.g. , Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing Twp. , 330 U.S. 1, 15, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947). The question here, therefore, is whether the City’s maintenance of the Bayview Park cross constitutes a prohibited "establishment of religion."

The City contends (1) that none of the plaintiffs here has suffered sufficient injury to have standing to sue and (2) that, in any event, the Bayview Park cross does not violate the Establishment Clause under current Supreme Court precedent. If we were writing on a clean slate, we might well agree—on both counts. But we are not—and so we cannot. As we will explain, we have concluded that we are bound by this Court’s decision in American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. , 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983), which considered facts nearly indistinguishable from those here. There, with the approval of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the Rabun County Chamber of Commerce erected an illuminated 35-foot Latin cross in Black Rock Mountain State Park. Id . at 1101. Like the Bayview Park cross at issue here, the Black Rock Mountain cross replaced a similar monument that had stood for a number of years but had fallen into disrepair, and like the Bayview Park cross, it was dedicated at an annual Easter sunrise service. Id . The ACLU of Georgia and five named individuals sued, claiming that the Establishment Clause forbade the Black Rock Mountain cross’s presence on state-owned land. A panel of this Court agreed, holding both (1) that the plaintiffs there had standing to sue and (2) that the cross violated the Establishment Clause. Id. at 1108–09, 1111.

For the reasons that follow, absent en banc reconsideration or Supreme Court reversal of the holding in Rabun , we are bound by our "prior panel precedent" rule to follow it, and are thus constrained to affirm the district court’s decision. See, e.g. , Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank , 755 F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir. 2014) ("It is the firmly established rule of this Circuit that each succeeding panel is bound by the holding of the first panel to address an issue of law, unless and until that holding is overruled en banc, or by the Supreme Court.") (alteration and internal quotations omitted).

A

We begin, as we must, with the question of the plaintiffs’ standing to sue. See, e.g. , Dillard v. Chilton Cty. Comm’n , 495 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007) ("[S]tanding is a threshold jurisdictional question which must be addressed prior to and independent of the merits of a party’s claims.") (internal quotations omitted). As already indicated, we find that the Court’s earlier decision in Rabun resolves the standing issue in the plaintiffs’ favor.

In Rabun , the defendants contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing under the Supreme Court’s then-recent decision in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). In Valley Forge , a nonprofit organization and four of its employees had sued to prevent the transfer of federal land to a religious institution. Id . at 469, 102 S.Ct. 752. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing based on the "shared individuated right to a government that ‘shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.’ " Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health, Ed. & Welfare , 619 F.2d 252, 261 (3d Cir. 1980). The Supreme Court rejected that theory, finding that such "generalized grievances" are insufficient to confer standing, and further stated that Establishment Clause plaintiffs who cannot identify a personal injury "other than the psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees" lack the injury necessary to establish Article III standing. Valley Forge , 454 U.S. at 483, 485, 102 S.Ct. 752. Relying on Valley Forge , the defendants in Rabun insisted that none of the plaintiffs there had the necessary standing. 698 F.2d at 1103.

While the Rabun panel acknowledged that Valley Forge had "expressly held that the mere ‘psychological consequence presumably produced by observation of conduct with which one disagrees’ is not a cognizable injury" for standing purposes, id . (quoting 454 U.S. at 486, 102 S.Ct. 752 ), it nonetheless concluded that the plaintiffs before it had "demonstrated an individualized injury, other than a mere psychological reaction," id . at 1108. Specifically, the panel held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently "allege[d] that they ha[d] been injured in fact because they ha[d] been deprived of their beneficial right of use and enjoyment of a state...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Pitch v. United States, 17-15016
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 11 de fevereiro de 2019
    ...of the Moore’s Ford Lynching. Because we are bound by our decision in Hastings , we affirm. See Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola, Fla. , 903 F.3d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) ("[O]ur precedent—in particular, our precedent about precedent—is clear: ‘[W]e are not at liberty to dis......
  • Kondrat'Yev v. City of Pensacola, No. 17-13025
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 19 de fevereiro de 2020
    ...on the ground that the City’s maintenance of the cross violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola , 903 F.3d 1169, 1171–72 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, judgment vacated , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2772, 204 L.Ed.2d 1153 (2019). The City subsequ......
  • A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 30 de maio de 2019
    ...on the merits as to the policy interpretation question.I. We must begin with the question of standing. See Kondrat’yev v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 903 F.3d 1169, 1172 (11th Cir. 2018). If there is no standing, we must end there, too. University of S. Ala. v. American Tobacco Co. , 168 F.3d ......
  • A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 19 de abril de 2019
    ...the merits as to the policy interpretation question. I. We must begin with the question of standing. See Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola, Fla., 903 F.3d 1169, 1172 (11th Cir. 2018). If there is no standing, we must end there, too. University of S. Ala. v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405......
2 books & journal articles
  • TREADING ON SACRED LAND: FIRST AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS OF ICE'S TARGETING OF CHURCHES.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 118 No. 2, November 2019
    • 1 de novembro de 2019
    ...standing, holding instead that plaintiffs established an injury in fact through familial harm). (112.) Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola, 903 F.3d 1169, 1173 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (holding that for Article III standing purposes, "it is enough" that a plaintiff has suffered "'metaphys......
  • AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
    • United States
    • Ave Maria Law Review No. 19, January 2021
    • 1 de janeiro de 2021
    ...Cong. v. City of Chicago, 827 F.2d 120, 129 (7th Cir. 1987) (Easterbrook, J., dissenting)). (43.) Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola, 903 F.3d 1169, 1182 (11th Cir. 2018) (Newsom, J., concurring in the (44.) Id. at 1179. (45.) Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Cap. Park & Plan. Comm'n, 147 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT