Glassroth v. Moore

Decision Date01 July 2003
Docket NumberNo. 02-16708.,No. 02-16949.,02-16708.,02-16949.
CitationGlassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003)
PartiesStephen R. GLASSROTH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy S. MOORE, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Defendant-Appellant. Melinda Maddox, Beverly J. Howard, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Roy S. Moore, in his official capacity as Administrative Head of the Alabama Judicial System, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Herbert W. Titus, Virginia Beach, VA, Phillip L. Jauregui, Jr., Gray & Jauregui, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Moore.

Marc D. Stern, New York City, Ayesha N. Khan, American United, Washington, DC, William Z. Messer, Robert J. Varley, Varley & Messer, L.L.P., Morris S. Dees, Rhonda Brownstein, Danielle Jeannine Lipow, J. Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center, Robert Marc Weinberg, Thomas, Means & Gillis, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Peter A. Gentala, Scottsdale, AZ, for Amicus, Alliance Defense Fund Law Ctr.

Troy R. King, Montgomery, AL, for Amicus Governor Riley.

Edward Lawrence White, III, Thomas Moore Law Ctr., Ann Arbor, MI, for Amicus Thomas Moore Law Ctr.

Robert K. Skolrood, Scoggin & Skolrood Law Firm, Roanoke, VA, for Amicus Wallbuilders Inc.

K. Hollyn Hollman, Washington, DC, for Amicus Alabama Clergy.

John C. Eastman, c/o Chapman Univ. School of Law, Orange, CA, for Amicus Claremont Institute Ctr. for Constitutional.

Benjamin F. Holt, Washington, DC, for Amicus American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Steven K. Green, American United, Salem, OR, for Amicus Legal Historians & Law Scholars.

James Michael Johnson, Shreveport, LA, Robert Benjamin Wolinsky, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, CARNES, Circuit Judge, and STORY,*District Judge.

CARNES, Circuit Judge:

The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court installed a two-and-one-half ton monument to the Ten Commandments as the centerpiece of the rotunda in the Alabama State Judicial Building.He did so in order to remind all Alabama citizens of, among other things, his belief in the sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian God over both the state and the church.And he rejected a request to permit a monument displaying a historically significant speech in the same space on the grounds that "[t]he placement of a speech of any man alongside the revealed law of God would tend in consequence to diminish the very purpose of the Ten Commandments monument."Glassroth v. Moore,229 F.Supp.2d 1290, 1297(M.D.Ala.2002).

The monument and its placement in the rotunda create the impression of being in the presence of something holy and sacred, causing some building employees and visitors to consider the monument an appropriate and inviting place for prayer.Three attorneys who do not consider the monument appropriate at all and who do not share the Chief Justice's religious beliefs brought two separate lawsuits to have the monument taken out.Agreeing with them that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the district court ordered the monument removed.Glassroth,229 F.Supp.2d at 1319;Glassroth v. Moore,242 F.Supp.2d 1067(M.D.Ala.2002).The Chief Justice appealed.We affirm.

I.

Because "[i]n religious-symbols cases, context is the touchstone,"King v. Richmond County,331 F.3d 1271, 1282, slip op. at 2552(11th Cir.2003), we set out the relevant facts in some detail, most of which are pulled from the district court's opinion, but a few of which we have drawn from undisputed testimony or other evidence in the record.

Chief Justice Moore began his judicial career as a judge on the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama.After taking office he hung a hand-carved, wooden plaque depicting the Ten Commandments behind the bench in his courtroom and routinely invited clergy to lead prayer at jury organizing sessions.Those actions generated two high-profile lawsuits in 1995 based on the Establishment Clause, one filed by a nonprofit organization seeking an injunction and the other brought by the State of Alabama seeking a declaratory judgment that then-Judge Moore's actions were not unconstitutional.Both suits were dismissed on justiciability grounds.Ala. Freethought Ass'n v. Moore,893 F.Supp. 1522(N.D.Ala.1995);Alabama ex rel. James v. ACLU,711 So.2d 952(Ala.1998);seeGlassroth,229 F.Supp.2d at 1293-94.

During his campaign for the Chief Justice position in the November 2000 election then-Judge Moore's campaign committee, capitalizing on name recognition from the lawsuits, decided to refer to him as the "Ten Commandments Judge."Although the Chief Justice says he never described himself that way, he did not disagree with his campaign committee's decision.As a result, most of his campaign materials, including billboards, television and radio commercials, telephone scripts, and mailings, described him as the "Ten Commandments Judge" or otherwise referred to the Ten Commandments.The central platform of his campaign was a promise "to restore the moral foundation of law."Glassroth,229 F.Supp.2d at 1294.

After he was elected, Chief Justice Moore fulfilled his campaign promise by installing the Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building.Id. at 1294, 1303.That building houses the Alabama Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court of Civil Appeals, the state law library, and the state's Administrative Office of the Courts.The Chief Justice, as administrative head of the Alabama judicial system and as lessee of the Judicial Building, has final authority over the decoration of the rotunda and whether to put any displays in the building.SeeAla. Const. Amend. 328, § 6.10;Ala.Code § 41-10-275.Chief Justice Moore placed the monument in the rotunda of the Judicial Building without the advance approval or even knowledge of any one of the other eight justices of the Alabama Supreme Court.All decisions regarding it were made by him.Glassroth,229 F.Supp.2d at 1294.He did not use any government funds in creating or installing the monument.Id.

Thousands of people enter the Judicial Building each year.In addition to attorneys, parties, judges, and employees, every fourth grader in the state is brought on a tour of the building as part of a field trip to the state capital.No one who enters the building through the main entrance can miss the monument.It is in the rotunda, directly across from the main entrance, in front of a plate-glass window with a courtyard and waterfall behind it.After entering the building, members of the public must pass through the rotunda to access the public elevator or stairs, to enter the law library, or to use the public restrooms.A person walking to the elevator, stairs, or restroom will pass within ten to twenty feet of the monument.The Chief Justice chose the location of the monument so that everyone visiting the Judicial Building would see it.Id.

The 5280-pound granite monument is "approximately three feet wide by three feet deep by four feet tall."Id.Two tablets with rounded tops are carved into the sloping top of the monument.Excerpts from Exodus 20:2-17 of the King James Version of the Holy Bible, the Ten Commandments, are chiseled into the tablets.The left one reads:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD

THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, TO KEEP IT HOLY

The right one reads:

HONOUR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

THOU SHALT NOT COVET1Glassroth, 229 F.Supp.2d at 1294-95;id. at 1320(App. A — photograph of the monument).

Below the Ten Commandments, each side of the monument contains one large-sized and several smaller-sized quotations.The quotations are excerpted from various historical documents and authorities.They are described and set out in full in the district court's opinion.Id. at 1295;id. at 1320-21(App. B — providing full quotations of the monument's text).The quotations from secular sources were placed below the Ten Commandments because of Chief Justice Moore's belief that the words of mere men could not be placed on the same plane as the Word of God.Id. at 1295.

"Due to the slope of the monument's top and the religious appearance of the tablets, the tablets call to mind an open Bible resting on a lectern."Id.The appearance and location of the monument itself give one "the sense of being in the presence of something not just valued and revered (such as an historical document) but also holy and sacred."Id.Employees and visitors to the building consider it an appropriate and inviting place for prayer.Id.

The monument was installed after the close of business during the evening of July 31, 2001.The Chief Justice has explained that it was done at night to avoid interrupting the normal business of the building.The installation of the monument that night was filmed by Coral Ridge Ministries, an evangelical Christian media outreach organization.Id. at 1294.The organization has used its exclusive footage of the installation to raise funds for its own purpose and for Chief Justice Moore's legal defense, which it has underwritten.Id. at 1304 n. 2.

At the public unveiling of the monument the day after its installation, Chief Justice Moore delivered a speech commemorating the event, and in that speech he talked about why he had placed the monument, which he described as one "depicting the moral foundation of our law," where he did.He explained that the location of the monument was "fitting and proper" because:

this monument will serve to remind the appellate courts and judges of the circuit and district courts of this state, the members of the bar who appear before them, as well as the people who visit the Alabama Judicial Building, of the truth...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
79 cases
  • Csx Transp., Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • December 19, 2006
    ...jurisdiction of the Railroad. Id. at 1350. The district court entered a judgment in favor of the Board. II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW We review factual findings of the district court for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1296-97 (11th Cir.2003). III. The Railroad raises three challenges to the determination by the district court of its true market value for tax year 2002. The Railroad first contends that the district court erred in holding...
  • Staley v. Harris County, Tex.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • August 10, 2004
    ...absence of any explanation for the presence of the open Bible, the court also concludes that a reasonable observer would understand that Harris County endorses the Bible and encourages its citizens to read it. See, e.g., Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 497, 157 L.Ed.2d 404 (2003); Adland Russ, 307 F.3d 471 (6th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 999, 123 S.Ct. 1909, 155 L.Ed.2d 826 (2003); Indiana Civil Liberties Union v. O'Bannon,...
  • Ortiz v. U.S., No. 08-16004. Non-Arugument Calendar (11th Cir. 11/30/2009)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • November 30, 2009
    ...Cir.1998). "We cannot find clear error unless `we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1177 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1292 (11th Cir. 2003)). We review a district court's application of law to the facts de novo. Whitley, 170 F.3d at 1068 (citing Reich v. Davis, 50 F.3d 962, 964 (11th Cir. IV. DISCUSSION In actions brought under the Federal Tort...
  • Hittson v. Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • July 09, 2014
    ...a “well settled” principle of federalism that “a state court's interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the corresponding federal court of appeals”) (brackets and quotation marks omitted); Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1302 n. 6 (11th Cir.2003) (“[S]tate courts when acting judicially, which they do when deciding cases brought before them by litigants, are not bound to agree with or apply the decisions of federal district courts and courts of appeal.”);...
  • Get Started for Free
7 books & journal articles
  • Tripping the Rift: Navigating Judicial Speech Fault Lines in the Post-white Landscape - Barbara E. Reed
    • United States
    • Mercer Law Reviews Mercer University School of Law
    • Invalid date
    ...responsibility to "God's law" trumped any such duties to U.S. law. Because of his willful refusal to comply with the law, he was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings and ultimately removed from the bench. See generally Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003). 49. See Butler, 802 So. 2d at 210. 50. Id. at 211. 51. Ala. CANCNS of Judicial Ethics Canon 2(A) (2004). 52. Ala, Canons of Judicial Ethics Canon 7(B)(2) (2004). 53. See supra note 51. 54. ALA. CANCNS of judicial ethics...
  • God(s) in Congress: A Two-Step Analysis Addressing the Constitutionality of Guest-Chaplain Invocations, and a Call for Aggressive Enforcement of the Establishment Clause
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review
    • May 01, 2013
    ...“nominal damages.” Id. 82. Id. at 1268–69 (“Establishment Clause challenges are not decided by bright-line rules, but on a case-by-case basis with the result turning on the specific facts.” (quoting Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “[T]he inquiry [into an Establishment Clause or a Free Exercise Clause case] calls for line-drawing; no fixed, per se rule can be framed.” Id. at 1269 (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668,...
  • Seeing government purpose through the objective observer's eyes: the evolution-intelligent design debates.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc. Bowman, Kristi L.
    • March 22, 2006
    ...moments of Establishment Clause jurisprudence) than with the presence of a definitive test. See, e.g., Peck v. Baldwinsville Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 04-4950-CV, 2005 WL 2649472, at * 14 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2005); Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003), aff'g 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2002); DeStefano v. Emergency Hous. Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 397, 405-06 (2d Cir. 2001). In some cases, such as Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist.,1442-43 (2001). (295.) See Columbia Union Coll. v. Oliver, 254 F.3d 496, 508 (4th Cir. 2001). (296.) See Ind. Civil Liberties Union v. O'Bannon, 259 F.3d 766, 770 (7th Cir. 2001). (297.) See Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1291, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2003); King v. Richmond County, 331 F.3d 1271, 1275 (11th Cir. (298.) Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688-94 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring). (299.) Glassroth, 335 F.3d at...
  • Congress's Power to Block Enforcement of Federal Court Orders
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review
    • May 01, 2008
    ...http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2005/09/new_column_ kick.html (concluding that Newdow highlights "the judicial activism of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court in their Establishment Clause jurisprudence"). Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1297 (11th Cir. 2003). Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore ordered the installation of the monument "after the close of business during the evening of July 31, 2001." Id. at 1286. He did not inform the other justices of his intentions, but...
  • Get Started for Free