Religious liberty group says the government’s position will make it more difficult for citizens to bring Establishment Clause violations before the Court

WASHINGTON — A citizen’s religious beliefs should not limit his ability to pursue a case against the federal government to correct an Establishment Clause violation, says the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Oct. 7 in the case of a former National Park Service employee, Frank Buono, who sued the federal government over an almost 7-foot-tall Latin cross on federal land.

The BJC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case defending Buono’s right to bring a lawsuit challenging the display, even though the religious symbol in question is one that represents his own faith. 

Read more about the case here.

The Baptist Joint Committee brief also maintains that a court’s examination of a person’s religious beliefs “raises concerns about government entanglement in religion,” improperly placing the court in the position of evaluating the validity and significance of someone’s beliefs.

Buono has argued the National Park Service’s maintenance of the cross in the Mojave National Preserve violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of religion. A federal judge agreed with Buono and ordered the cross’s removal. That decision led Congress to transfer the small piece of land under the cross to a private owner. Lower courts ruled that this congressional action was not enough to cure the Establishment Clause violation, and they stopped the property transfer. The Supreme Court will now review that decision.

In this case, the government not only disputes Buono’s claims of an Establishment Clause violation, but it also argues that he lacks sufficient injury to have “standing,” or the right to sue because he is Catholic and does not object to the display of the cross in other contexts.

BJC General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman said the government’s position ignores the important stake that Christians have in avoiding government sponsorship of religion.

“A central concern of the Establishment Clause is avoiding government sponsorship of religion, which threatens to damage religion itself.  Government advancement of religion not only violates the Establishment Clause, but it doesn’t do religion any favors,” Hollman said. “The sacred nature of religious symbols can become an inadvertent casualty of government sponsorship.”

The government’s position puts an extra and unnecessary burden on plaintiffs who are willing to fight governmental establishment of religion.  

“Litigation is an important tool in upholding First Amendment rights,” Hollman said. “If the government prevails, citizens would have a more difficult time fighting government-sponsored religious displays.”  


The case is Salazar v. Buono.  

                                                                        —30—

The Baptist Joint Committee is a 73-year-old, Washington, D.C.-based religious liberty organization that works to defend and extend God-given religious liberty for all, bringing a uniquely Baptist witness to the principle that religion must be freely exercised, neither advanced nor inhibited by government.