Woodring v. Jackson Cnty., 20-1881
Decision Date | 02 February 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 20-1881,20-1881 |
Citation | 986 F.3d 979 |
Parties | Rebecca WOODRING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACKSON COUNTY, INDIANA, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Kenneth J. Falk, Stevie J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose, Attorneys, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roger Karam Gannam, Horatio Gabriel Mihet, Daniel Joseph Schmid, Attorneys, Liberty Counsel Inc., Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Kelly J. Shackelford, Esq., Attorney, First Liberty Institute, Plano, TX, for Amicus Curiae First Liberty Institute.
Diana Verm, Attorney, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Brownstown Area Ministerial Association.
Patrick Elliott, Attorney, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Madison, WI, for Amicus Curiae Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Before Wood, Hamilton, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.
This case concerns the constitutionality of a nativity scene on government property. Each holiday season, Jackson County, Indiana allows private groups to set up a lighted Christmas display on the front lawn of its historic courthouse. The display comprises a nativity scene, Santa Claus in his sleigh, a reindeer, carolers, and large candy-striped poles. Rebecca Woodring, a resident of Jackson County, sued the County to enjoin the nativity scene. In her view, the nativity scene violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause because it conveys the County's endorsement of a religious message. The County defends the nativity scene as part of its secular celebration of a public holiday. The district court sided with Woodring and permanently enjoined the County from displaying the nativity scene, at least in its current arrangement. The County now appeals.
We agree with the district court that Woodring has standing to sue, but we hold that the County's nativity scene complies with the Establishment Clause. The district court thought itself bound by the "purpose" and "endorsement" tests that grew out of the Supreme Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman , 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). We hold, however, that the Supreme Court's recent decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2067, 204 L.Ed.2d 452 (2019), requires us to use a different, more historical framework to gauge the constitutionality of the County's nativity scene. Applying American Legion , we conclude that the County's nativity scene is constitutional because it fits within a long national tradition of using the nativity scene in broader holiday displays to celebrate the origins of Christmas—a public holiday. We thus affirm the district court's ruling on standing, reverse its Establishment Clause ruling, and vacate the injunction.
A historic courthouse sits on Main Street in Brownstown, Indiana, the county seat of Jackson County. These days, "courthouse" is something of a misnomer for the building. In December 2018, the county courts and judicial offices relocated from the courthouse to a new Judicial Center, which sits behind and across the street from the courthouse. The county treasurer, auditor, assessor, recorder, surveyor, planning and zoning offices, and public defender's office remain in the historic courthouse, along with a Purdue University extension program that operates in the basement. The courthouse sits in the middle of a park-like square, bordered on all sides by intersecting streets. It has a large front lawn that faces Main Street. Permanent fixtures on the front lawn include a bell, a flagpole, a tank, and a granite monument that serves as a memorial to veterans. The front lawn is on the west side of the courthouse. The Judicial Center is on its east side. The east and west sides of the courthouse have main entrances.
Every year, from around Thanksgiving to New Year's Day, a Christmas display goes up on the front lawn of the courthouse. The display—a collection of wire-framed shapes that light up from dusk to dawn—straddles a sidewalk leading from the front courthouse doors to Main Street. The display consists of a waving Santa Claus with his sleigh, a reindeer, seven large candy-striped poles, the nativity scene (also known as a crèche), and four carolers standing in front of a lamp post. Santa Claus and the reindeer are on the left edge of the display. To their right are three gift-bearing kings (Magi) and a camel, who look upon the nativity. On the right side of the sidewalk, Mary, Joseph, and infant Jesus in the stable are flanked on each side by trumpet-playing angels. To their right are several animals facing the nativity. The carolers stand in front of the animals, closer to Main Street. The tall candy-striped poles are interspersed along the back edge of the display. Here is a picture of the display at dusk:
The display has gone up each year since 2003, when the Brownstown Area Ministerial Association purchased it. Although the Ministerial Association owns the display, the local Lion's Club (a secular group) takes care of it and sets it up each year. The County supplies electricity for the display. There is evidence that the courthouse had similar displays before 2003. In 2000, the courthouse custodian borrowed a display from a local church and placed it on the front lawn. There was no display in 2001. In fact, the then-President of the County Commissioners "publicly apologized for not having a nativity scene in the Courthouse yard" that year. In 2002, the Brownstown Chamber of Commerce set up some Christmas decorations on the lawn. Since 2003, some version of the current display has gone up with the County's approval.
Before 2018, the secular elements of the display were more remote from the nativity scene, at far ends of the front lawn. In December 2018, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to the County demanding removal of the nativity scene on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause. The letter prompted a rally at the courthouse, where the President of the County Commissioners spoke and other attendees said prayers. In response to the letter, the County rearranged the display into its current format so that all items, secular and non-secular, appeared in one field of view. The County intended this change to be permanent and instructed the Lions Club to preserve the same arrangement in future years, with "at least as many and as large non-religious items ... placed at least as close to each other."
The display we have described and pictured above is the display that went up during the 2019 holiday season. We consider the constitutionality of that display only and not any prior iterations of it. Woodring does not challenge the pre-2018 version of the display, and she does not identify any meaningful differences between the 2018 and 2019 displays.
Woodring lives in Seymour, Indiana, which is within Jackson County. She has lived in Jackson County since 2016. Woodring has a daycare business and a nascent t-shirt business. These businesses generate income, and Woodring pays taxes, including county taxes, on her income. Woodring is an atheist who believes that government should avoid religious activity.
Woodring often travels to and through Brownstown during her everyday activities. Starting in November 2018, Woodring had to go to the Judicial Center to handle matters related to her divorce. On one of these occasions, she entered the courthouse by accident and was directed to the Judicial Center. Each time Woodring went to the Judicial Center, she passed by the courthouse or could see its front lawn. Woodring's divorce was granted in early 2019, but she continues to travel on Main Street past the courthouse. She goes there to engage in business, to go grocery shopping and couponing, to take day trips, to take her son to a test at least once a year, and to meet with the Jackson County Prosecutor about collecting child support. The prosecutor's office is in the Judicial Center, but Woodring sees the front lawn of the courthouse when she goes there. Except for her divorce-related trips, Woodring plans to engage in all these activities in the future, so she will continue to travel by or near the courthouse and see its front lawn.
Woodring first learned about the display in December 2018 when she read an online news story about the Freedom From Religion Foundation's demand letter. After seeing pictures of the display online, Woodring decided to go and see it in person. Wooding drove to Brownstown to visit the display and do some couponing. Woodring believes that the nativity scene in the display "celebrates Christianity" and is a "religious display on government property." She finds it offensive and "believe[s] it is improper as it forces or projects a belief onto me that I do not share and it is not the role of government to project or endorse religious beliefs." Woodring has not altered her behavior to avoid seeing the display, and she does not plan to do so in the future, "as there is really no way to travel to or through Brownstown and avoid seeing the front lawn of the Courthouse that faces Main Street."
At her deposition, Woodring testified that the whole display, including the secular items, offends her because it is all "part of the Christmas and the whole, you know, Christianity thing." She testified that, no matter how many secular items are in the display, and no matter their arrangement, the display will offend her. She will not be satisfied unless the whole display is moved off government property.
In late December 2018, Woodring filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County, alleging that the nativity scene at the historic courthouse violates the Establishment Clause. Woodring sought a declaration and permanent injunction prohibiting the County from displaying the nativity scene on the front lawn of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bristol Reg'l Women's Ctr., P.C. v. Slatery
...factors, a judge can do little but announce his gestalt."), abrogation on unrelated grounds recognized by Woodring v. Jackson Cnty., Ind. , 986 F.3d 979, 993 (7th Cir. 2021). So we analyzed the facts presented in this case and applied the law to those facts. And reviewed de novo, Tennessee'......
-
United States v. Topouzian
...U.S. 598, 607 (2000). And the passage of time - here, 70 years - simply reinforces that presumption. Woodring v. Jackson County, Indiana, 986 F.3d 979, 991 (7th Cir. 2021); In re Search of Office of Tylman, 245 F.3d 978, 981 (7th Cir. 2001); In re Air Crash Disaster Near Roselawn, Indiana, ......
-
Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.
...at 2254. And other courts around the country have recognized Lemon ’s demise and wisely left it dead. See, e.g. , Woodring v. Jackson County , 986 F.3d 979, 981 (7th Cir. 2021) ; Perrier-Bilbo v. United States , 954 F.3d 413, 425 (1st Cir. 2020) ; Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola , 949 F.3d......
-
Roe v. Richardson
... ... decision.” Woodring v. Jackson Cnty ., 986 F.3d ... 979, 984 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing ... ...
-
Recent Section 1983 Religion Decisions From The Circuits
...Clause In Woodring v. Jackson County, Indiana, 986 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2021), the Seventh Circuit, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in American Legion, noted below, that emphasized “a long national tradition of using the nativity scene in broader holiday displays to celebrate the orig......
-
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: the Struggle to Analyze School Board Prayer and a New Method of Establishment Clause Analysis
...J., concurring) ("How old must a monument, symbol, or practice be to qualify for this new presumption?"); Woodring v. Jackson County, 986 F.3d 979, 994 (7th Cir. 2021) ("[W]e are unable to conclude, as a threshold matter, that the County's nativity scene is 'longstanding' or 'established,' ......