Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Baxter Cnty., CASE NO. 3:14-CV-3126
| Decision Date | 12 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 3:14-CV-3126 |
| Citation | 143 F.Supp.3d 816 |
| Parties | American Humanist Association and Dessa Blackthorn, Plaintiffs v. Baxter County, Arkansas and Mickey Pendergrass, Baxter County Judge, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
J.G. ‘Gerry’ Schulze, Little Rock, AR, David Niose, Fitchburg, MA, and Monica Miller, Washington, D.C. for Plaintiffs.
Jason Owens, Rainwater, Holt & Sexton, Little Rock, AR for Defendants.
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
Currently before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Baxter County, Arkansas, and Baxter County Judge Mickey Pendergrass (Doc. 18), the Brief in Support of that Motion (Doc. 19), and the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of that Motion (Doc. 20); and Plaintiffs American Humanist Association's ("AHA") and Dessa Blackthorn's Response in opposition to that Motion (Doc. 21), Memorandum of Law in Support of their Response (Doc. 22), and Response to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. 23). Also currently before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15), Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion (Doc. 16), and Statement of Material Facts as to Which There Is No Material Dispute (Doc. 17); Defendants' Response in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. 26) and Response to Plaintiffs' Facts in Support of their Motion (Doc. 25); and Plaintiffs' Reply in support of their Motion (Doc. 27). For the reasons given below, both summary judgment motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiffs are awarded summary judgment on their claims against Baxter County, Arkansas, and Judge Pendergrass in his official capacity, but Plaintiffs' claims against Judge Mickey Pendergrass in his individual capacity are dismissed with prejudice.
For at least the past forty years, a nativity scene depicting the birth of Jesus Christ has been displayed on the Baxter County Courthouse lawn during the Christmas season. The creche is owned by a Baxter County attorney named Rick Spencer who is not a party to this action. This nativity display has long been accompanied by a Christmas tree, and in recent years it has acquired a few additional figures depicting Santa Claus and reindeer. Controversy began to swirl around the display in late 2013, when several requests were made of Judge Pendergrass to permit the display of a "Happy Solstice" banner next to the creche. Judge Pendergrass denied these requests, and in January 2014 he received a letter from the AHA contending that the display violated the Establishment Clause and asking him to remove it. In October 2014, the AHA sent Judge Pendergrass a second letter, threatening to file a lawsuit if a similar display were erected by the County during the looming holiday season.
One month later, Baxter County and the Mountain Home Chamber of Commerce entered into an agreement, under which the Chamber of Commerce would pay Baxter County $1.00 to lease the northwest corner of the Baxter County Courthouse property, for the explicitly stated purpose of erecting a nativity scene display. Judge Pendergrass signed the lease agreement on behalf of Baxter County, and the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Eddie Majeste, signed on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. The creche was again erected on the same spot during the 2014 Christmas season, but this time with a novel twist. On December 2, 2014, the Baxter County Quorum Court unanimously passed "a resolution approving the display of a creche accompanied by a disclaimer to be placed on the courthouse property during the Christmas season." The disclaimer was posted with the creche, and read:
During the Holiday Season, the County of Baxter salutes liberty. Let these festive lights and times remind us that we are keepers of the flame of liberty and our legacy of freedom. Whatever your religion or beliefs, enjoy the holidays. This display is owned and erected by private citizens of Baxter County.
True to the October 2014 letter, the AHA and Ms. Blackthorn initiated this lawsuit by filing their Complaint (Doc. 1) on December 23, 2014, alleging that by erecting the display, Baxter County and Judge Pendergrass have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, along with nominal damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed their Answer (Doc. 10) a month later, denying that they had violated any laws, denying that Plaintiffs were entitled to any relief, and asserting a variety of affirmative defenses. Several months of discovery ensued, and in early July 2015, both sides moved for summary judgment. Both summary judgment motions are now ripe for decision.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)
. When, as here, cross-motions for summary judgment are filed, each motion should be reviewed in its own right, with each side "entitled to the benefit of all inferences favorable to them which might reasonably be drawn from the record." Wermager v. Cormorant Twp. Bd. , 716 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir.1983) ; see also Canada v. Union Elec. Co. , 135 F.3d 1211, 1212–13 (8th Cir.1997). The moving party bears the burden of proving the absence of any material factual disputes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ; Nat'l Bank of Commerce of El Dorado, Ark. v. Dow Chem. Co. , 165 F.3d 602 (8th Cir.1999). If the moving party meets this burden, then the non-moving party must "come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ " Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ). These specific facts must be "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Allison v. Flexway Trucking, Inc. , 28 F.3d 64, 66 (8th Cir.1994) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ).
The first requirement in any federal case is that the plaintiff have what is called "standing" to bring the case. Tarsney v. O'Keefe , 225 F.3d 929, 934 (8th Cir.2000)
. Essentially, this means that the plaintiff must have "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy" as to guarantee that the parties to the case are actually adverse to each other. See Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). This requirement stems in part from Article Ill of the United States Constitution, which limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to specific types of "cases" and "controversies." U.S. Const. art. 111, § 2. A party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of showing that it has standing to bring its claims. Schanou v. Lancaster Cty. Sch. Dist. , 62 F.3d 1040, 1045 (8th Cir.1995). Here, that burden applies to Plaintiffs American Humanist Association and Dessa Blackthorn.
The United States Supreme Court has explained that in order for a plaintiff to have Article Ill standing, the plaintiff must show three things: (1) that it suffered an "injury in fact" which was both "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent"; (2) that there is a causal connection between the injury it suffered and the conduct of which it complains; and (3) that it is "likely," rather than merely "speculative," that a favorable decision by the court would redress the injury. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)
. In addition to these Article Ill requirements, certain so-called "prudential principles" must also be satisfied in order for a plaintiff to have standing. Included among these are the requirements that a plaintiff assert its own rights or interests rather than those of a third party, that the asserted grievance not be abstract and generalized, and that the grievance fall "within the zone of interests to be protected ... by the ... constitutional guarantee in question." See Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 474–75, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982).
An organization like AHA "has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.' " Red River Freethinkers v. City of Fargo , 679 F.3d 1015, 1022 (8th Cir.2012)
(quoting United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc. , 517 U.S. 544, 553, 116 S.Ct. 1529, 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996) ). Defendants contend that Ms. Blackthorn, who is a member of AHA, cannot show that she has suffered an injury sufficient to satisfy standing requirements. Therefore, Defendants argue, Ms. Blackthorn and AHA both lack standing to bring this lawsuit.
In cases where a state actor is alleged to have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by erecting a religious display, an individual such as Ms. Blackthorn can show that she has suffered an injury for purposes of standing merely by demonstrating that she experienced "direct and unwelcome personal contact with the alleged establishment of religion." See id. at 1023
. There is no dispute that Ms. Blackthorn had direct contact with the display at issue in this case, but Defendants argue that this contact was not unwelcome. In particular, Defendants reason that since Ms. Blackthorn testified in her deposition that she is a "Christian...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodge v. Twin City Transp., Inc.
...actions." Florey v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern., 575 F.2d 673, 676 (8th Cir. 1978); see also Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Baxter County, Ark., 143 F. Supp. 3d 816, 823 (W.D. Ark. 2015) ("With a few exceptions, . . . constitutional guarantees of individual liberty . . . do not apply to the actio......
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Harris Co. of Fort Smith, Inc.