Davies v. L.A. Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors

• Decision Date: 06 April 2016
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:14-cv-00907-CAS-FFM
• Citation: 177 F.Supp.3d 1194
• Parties: Reverend Father Ian Elliott Davies; Reverend J. Edwin Bacon, Jr.; Shakeel Syed; Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis; Reverend Tera Little; Rabbi John Rosove; Reverend Peter Laarman; David N. Myers ; and Rabbi Amy Bernstein, Plaintiffs, v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; and William T. Fujioka, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

177 F.Supp.3d 1194

Reverend Father Ian Elliott Davies; Reverend J. Edwin Bacon, Jr.; Shakeel Syed; Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis; Reverend Tera Little; Rabbi John Rosove; Reverend Peter Laarman; David N. Myers ; and Rabbi Amy Bernstein, Plaintiffs,

v.Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; and William T. Fujioka, Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-cv-00907-CAS-FFM

United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division.

Signed April 6, 2016

Andrew A. Esbenshade, Linda M. Burrow, Arwen Johnson, Kimberly Michelle Singer, Caldwell Leslie and Proctor PC, Mark D. Rosenbaum, Public Counsel Law Center, Peter J. Eliasberg, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, Benjamin B. Au, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Frank J. Ozello, Jr., Kenneth A. Maranga, Patricia E. Ellyatt, Patricia M. Ford, Maranga Morgenstern, Woodland Hills, CA, Timothy Towery Coates, Greines Martin Stein and Richland LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Dkt. 84)

Honorable Christina A. Snyder

, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 6, 2014, plaintiffs Reverend Father Ian Elliott Davies, Reverend J. Edwin Bacon, Jr., Shakeel Syed, Rabbi Harold M. Schulweis, Reverend Tera Little, Rabbi John Rosove, Reverend Peter Laarman, David N. Myers, and Rabbi Amy Bernstein (collectively, “plaintiffs”) filed the instant action against defendants Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (“the Board” or “the County”), and County Chief Executive Officer William T. Fujioka (collectively, “defendants”). Dkt. 1 (Complaint). In brief, plaintiffs allege that the Board's January 7, 2014 motion approving the restoration of a Latin cross to the official County seal by placing the cross atop the seal's depiction of the San Gabriel Mission violates (1) the No Aid Clause of article XVI, section 5 of the California Constitution

; (2) the No Preference Clause of article I, section 4 of the California Constitution ; and (3) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Complaint at ¶¶ 9, 38-49.

On September 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed the instant motion for a permanent injunction. Dkt. 84 (“Motion”).¹ On October 8, 2015, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion. Dkt. 97 (“Opp'n”).² On October 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed a reply. Dkt. 121 (“Reply”). On November 10, 2015, the Court held a one-day bench trial.³ Having carefully considered the parties' arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT⁴

Plaintiffs are citizens and taxpayers of the County of Los Angeles who regularly come into contact with the County Seal.

See Davies Decl. at ¶ 2; Bacon Decl. at ¶ 2; Syed Decl. at ¶ 2; Little Decl. at ¶ 2; Rosove Decl. at ¶ 2; Laarman Decl. at ¶ 2; Myers Decl. at ¶ 2; and Bernstein Decl. at ¶ 2. Defendant Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the County of Los Angeles. In 2014, when the instant suit was filed, defendant William T. Fujioka served as the Chief Executive Officer of the County of Los Angeles, and the Board of Supervisors consisted of the following five elected members: Supervisor Gloria Molina (District No. 1), Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas (District No. 2), Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky (District No. 3), Supervisor Don Knabe (District No. 4), and Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich (District No. 5).⁵ Tr. Ex. 67.

On January 2, 1957, the Board of Supervisors adopted a new official seal for the County of Los Angeles (the “1957 Seal”). Tr. Ex. 7. The 1957 Seal was designed by former Supervisor Kenneth Hahn and depicted, among other things, an image of the Hollywood Bowl, with two stars and an unadorned Latin cross situated in the sky above it. Id. According to official County documents, the depiction of the Hollywood Bowl on the 1957 Seal represents cultural activities, and the two stars represent the motion picture and television industries. Id. It is unclear from the record whether the unadorned Latin cross was meant to represent “the influence of the church and missions of California,” id. or, more simply, religion.⁶ In addition to the cross, the 1957 Seal also depicted an image of Pomona, “the goddess of gardens and fruit trees,” to represent agriculture; the Spanish galleon San Salvador , which sailed into San Pedro Harbor on October 8, 1542; a tuna, to represent the fishing industry; the champion cow Pearlette, to represent the dairy industry; engineering instruments, to represent the County's “contribution to the conquest of space”; and oil derricks, to represent oil fields discovered on Signal Hill. Id.

The 1957 Seal served as the County's official seal until 2004. On May 19, 2004, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California (“ACLU”) sent a letter to County officials stating that the presence of the cross on the 1957 Seal “reflects an impermissible endorsement of Christianity by the County” and was therefore unconstitutional. See Tr. Ex. 11. In its letter, the ACLU also indicated that it “was prepared to negotiate a reasonable time frame” for the 1957 Seal's replacement, but would file suit against the County if it did not agree to remove the Latin cross. Id.

On June 1, 2004, during a closed session of the Board of Supervisors, the five members of the Board voted 3-2 to instruct County Counsel to “negotiate with the ACLU” to determine whether the ACLU would refrain from filing suit if the County were to (1) add to the seal “a representation of the region's indigenous peoples,” and (2) replace the Latin cross “with a depiction of a California mission.”⁷ Tr. Ex. 82.

On June 8, 2004, at one of several public meetings wherein the Board discussed potential revisions to the 1957 Seal, the Board heard testimony from members of the public, many of whom objected to the removal of the Latin cross on religious grounds. See Tr. Ex. 13 (June 8, 2004 Board Meeting Minutes), at 86 (“If there's no cross, there's no compromise.”), 101 (“This is an attack on the body of Christ.”), 112 (“My lord and savior died on that cross and it would be horrible for me to just let it be erased.”), 135 (“The cross represents not just the passion that we are presenting today but the passion of Christ and [that] this is a Christian nation.”), 187 (“It's a symbol of the love of Christ.”).

Following the time for public comment, each of the five members of the Board shared his or her views on revising the 1957 Seal. Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich stated his view that “[t]he cross is a part of a historical fact with the founding of the County of Los Angeles, just as the Star of David on the Sheriff's badge is a reflection of ... the Judaic heritage and the laws of Moses.” Id. at 192-93; see also id. at 194 (stating that the 1957 Seal “reflects the historical nature of the County of Los Angeles”), 219 (“The County Seal does not lack historical significance and it's just reporting a historical fact.”), 219 (“In this case, it's reflecting a historical fact on the County of Los Angeles and there's been no Supreme Court decision that outlaws that.”). Regarding the proposed changes to the seal, Antonovich stated that “[i]f you replace [the cross] with a mission without a cross [,] that's not a mission anymore.” Id. at 219-20. He also noted “additional problems” related to “the costs [of] redoing a county seal,” asking, “why should we spend time and effort to make replacements when our time and effort ought to be spent in getting those resources to keep the libraries open, to get the children adopted, and to help public safety?” Id. at 193, 220. Antonovich further stated that changing the 1957 Seal might expose the County to liability for infringing upon the original artist's intellectual property rights in the depiction, to the extent any such rights existed. Id. at 193. Accordingly, Antonovich proposed a motion to seek additional, outside legal counsel regarding the constitutionality of the 1957 Seal, and to reject the proposal to amend the seal. Id. at 195.

Supervisor Don Knabe then stated that the legal issues presented by the 1957 Seal were “debatable,” further asserting as follows:

The issue is, where does it all end? And I think this Board needs to stand up and say, wait a minute. We have a great history in this County. We have a great history of our people in this County, in this state, and enough is enough.

Id.

Comments from Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky followed. Yaroslavsky stated that in its 1957 filings with the Secretary of State, the County had “explained what the cross stood for” and “didn't say [the cross] was part of our history, to represent our history. It was one word. They said Religion.” Id. at 203. Yaroslavsky further stated that although he had been called “anti-Christian” and “insensitive to our history” by members of the public, he felt that “part of a responsible governing body is to be able to stand up like grown men and women and take a legal opinion for what it is.” Id. at 197. Regarding the proposal to remove the cross and add an image of a mission, Yaroslavsky stated:

If we're talking about the history of Los Angeles County and the role that the missionaries played in the development, in the settlement of California in the 18th and 19th century, and it is clearly a part of our history, then a mission depicts that history as much as anything. If you don't believe that a mission is a sufficient symbol to represent the history, if you believe alternatively, as I think I said in closed session last week, that the only way to represent the history of L.A. County, as it relates to the missionaries, is with a religious symbol of the Latin cross, you've got a constitutional problem.

Id. at 202. Yaroslavsky further stated that “if the issue is history and not religion, then there are a thousand and one ways to depict history and I think we chose a pretty good one.” Id. at 203.

Supervisor Yvonne Burke characterized the June 8, 2004 meeting, which included many interruptions by members of the public, as a...