Ten Commandments and the Seven Aphorisms of Summum

In an unusual order, the Tenth Circuit divided equally in a decision over whether to rehear a case en banc. The equally-divided order means the request to rehear the case was denied and the panel opinion was affirmed. The Court's specific holding will be addressed below, but a bit of background appears to be in order.

The panel opinion involved a request by "Summum" -- a religious organization -- to post a monument containing the "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" in a city park. The panel's opinion does not provide any detail regarding the tenets of Summum, but one website indicates that the philosophy/religion stems from its founder's (Claude "Corky" Nowell) encounter with beings he describes as "Summa Individuals." According to Nowell, these beings "presented him with concepts regarding the nature of creation, concepts that have always existed and are continually reintroduced to humankind by advanced beings who work along the pathways of creation." The Seven Summum Principles are known as Pscychokinesis, Correspondence, Vibration, Opposition, Rhythm, Cause and Effect, and Gender.

Well, among other things, the followers of Summum also believe that Moses was given both a "lower" and "higher" knowlege from a divine being. The lower knowledge refers to the more widely known "Ten Commandments," while the higher knowledge refers to the "Seven Aphorisms." Apparently, when Moses first descended from Mount Sinai, he had with him the higher law -- a law the Israelites were unable to understand because of their under-developed condition. Moses therefore returned to Mount Sinai and descended with the lower law, which was much easier for the Israelites to understand. The Summum website indicates that "many people are not ready to understand the aphorisms carved on those first tablets."

The panel's decision involves a free speech issue only -- whether a City violated the Summans' free speech rights when it refused it the opportunity to post the Seven Aphorisms in a city park, when the City had otherwise allowed the posting of the Ten Commandments.

The Court was forced to address whether the city park was a "public forum" for purposes of free speech analysis. Following an exhaustive analysis, the Court found that the city park was a "traditional public forum," and, therefore, restrictions on speech were subject to strict scrutiny and "content-based restrictions are presumptively invalid." Only if the government shows that the restriction is necessary to "serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end" will it survive strict scrutiny." The city had failed to justify the restriction under that standard. The city's desire to "promote its own history" was insufficient -- the city can promote that goal by a number of means, but not by restricting access to a public forum traditionally committed to public debate and the free exchange of ideas.

The City sought rehearing en banc, which was denied on an equally divided vote. Judge McConnell, who was widely regarded as a potential Supreme Court candidate upon the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist and resignation of Justice O'Connor, dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. He stated that "neither the logic nor the language of these Supreme Court decisions suggests that city parks must be open to the erection of fixed and permanent monuments expressing the sentiments of private parties. By their policies or actions, governments may create designated public forums with respect to fixed monuments, but -- contrary to these opinions -- the mere status of the property as a park does not make it so." Judge Lucero likewise dissented, but on different grounds. He argued that the park was a "limited public forum." In those situations, local governments are permitted to make "content-based determinations about what monuments to allow in such space, but may not discriminate as to viewpoint."

Two other recent appointees to the Court -- Judges Gorusch and Holmes -- also would have reheard the case en banc.

The issues at stake apparently caught the Supreme Court's eye, because they have elected to review the Tenth Circuit's opinion, granting certiorari on March 31, 2008. The Court will hear oral arguments on the case on November 12, 2008. More information on the case can be found here and here.

Personal Dress and the Freedom to "Express"

The Sunday edition of the Tulsa World contains an article by Ben Braun detailing the varying style of dress donned by various courthouse players, from civil clients and criminal defendants to the "young" attorney caught without a tie on "causal" day at the office. The full article can be found here.

Reading the article brought to mind the seminal First Amendment, freedom of expression case, Cohen v. California, 430 U.S. 15 (1971) (A decision also famous for Justice Harlan's quote, "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric"). For background:

"On April 26, 1968, [Cohen] was observed in the Los Angeles County Courthouse in the corridor outside of division 20 of the municipal court wearing a jacket bearing the words ‘F**k the Draft’ which were plainly visible. There were women and children present in the corridor. [Cohen] was arrested. [Cohen] testified that he wore the jacket knowing that the words were on the jacket as a means of informing the public of the depth of his feelings against the Vietnam War and the draft." (Omission added).

Although not addressed by the Tulsa World article, the battle between dress and protest continues to rankle both government and citizen.

Take, for example, the case of Nicole and Jeffery Rank, who, in July of 2004 purchased tickets to attend a speech by President Bush. The tickets "provided that patrons would be seated on a first come, first served basis, without regard to either political affiliation or affinity with the President or his policies."

On July 4, 2004, the Ranks entered the area designated for the speech. While waiting for the President to arrive, the Ranks removed their outer shirts to display t-shirts that bore the international “no” symbol (a circle with a diagonal line across it) superimposed over the word “Bush.” Both shirts also displayed on the left sleeve a small photograph of President Bush with the international “no” symbol superimposed over it, and on the right sleeve a “Kerry” button. The message on the back of Nicole Rank's t-shirt was “Love America, Hate Bush.” On the back of Jeffrey Rank's shirt was the message “Regime Change Starts at Home.”

A short time later, the Ranks were approached by White House Event Staff Members who informed the Ranks that they could not remain on the grounds while wearing t-shirts critical of the President. When the Ranks refused to remove the shirts, they were arrested for trespassing by law enforcement officers who had previously been told that “White House Staff had the authority to revoke any person's ticket....”

On August 16, 2007, the government paid the Ranks $80,000 to dismiss their claim in what the ACLU described as, "a real victory not only for our clients but for the First Amendment."

Given the settlement, it is unknown how courts would decide the issue presented by the Ranks. On the one hand, the Ranks argue the First Amendment protects their expression from governmental intrusion. On the other hand, well-settled First Amendment jurisprudence clearly stands for the proposition that expressive freedoms are not "absolute," i.e., appropriate time, place and manner restrictions may apply depending upon the type of forum in which the expression occurred, in addition to other, content-based restrictions, e.g., the First Amendment does not protect fighting words or words intended to incite others.

Because content-based restrictions are the most loathsome restriction on free expression, and because the Ranks' t-shirts articulated a purely political message, unburdened by patently offensive language, the government would likely argue the President's speech was not an open forum. In other words, by requiring attendees to purchase a ticket, the nature of the forum at issue was materially altered by the terms and conditions of the ticket itself. As such, the government could impose content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions.

In the Ranks' case, it appears they were singled out because of the message appearing on their shirts, and not for any other reason. As such, it is difficult to fathom a content-neutral "time, place, manner," restriction that would govern the Ranks' personal dress to the exclusion of their corresponding freedom of expression.

(A more detailed analysis of First Amendment time, place and manner jurisprudence in the Northern District of Oklahoma, in the context of city council meetings, can be found here).

Summary Judgment to Non-Moving Party

An interesting opinion was issued by the Northern District of Oklahoma recently. Interesting on several fronts, actually. The case involved a "devout Muslim" who followed the tenets of Islam that "purport to advise followers to use Muslim prayer oils to enhance the spiritual value of their five daily prayers." The Department of Corrections had enacted a rule that, with a few exceptions, banned the sale of Muslim prayer oils in prison canteens and banned the in-cell possession and use of such oils by inmates. The plaintiff sued, claiming a violation of the First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion. Several years ago, the Northern District granted summary judgment to the defendant. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the Northern District's decision with respect to the First Amendment claim, noting that the defendant's policy was "rationally related to a legitimate penological interest." (The Tenth Circuit's opinion can be found here.) The Court remanded for purposes of allowing the district to consider whether the plaintiff -- who was pro se -- had adequately stated a claim under the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" or "RLUIPA." (RLUIPA can be found here and is discussed here.)

Following remand to the Northern District, the Court found that the plaintiff had stated a RLUIPA claim and, thereafter, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Instead of granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, the Court found that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment, even though the defendant had not formally filed a Rule 56 motion. In its order, the Court noted that "[t]he weight of authority is that summary judgment may be rendered in favor of the opposing party even though he has made no formal cross-motion under rule 56." According to the court, summary judgment in favor of the non-moving party is appropriate where "the Court can determine that the non-moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and if there is no procedural prejudice to the moving party. No procedural prejudice results if the court finds that the parties had the opportunity to present and did present all of the applicable facts concerning the parameters of their positions."

And the Court found that the parties had a "full opportunity to explore the scope of their positions." Applying a strict scrutiny analysis, the Court found that summary judgment was appropriate in favor of the DOC because the DOC had "demonstrated that the compelling state interest in maintaining security and order in a hostile penal system outweighs [the plaintiff's] interest in having the prayer oils in his cell and that limiting access to the prayers [sic] oils to that stored in the chapel or other facility is the least restrictive means of furthering the state's interests."

Football and the Courts

There was interesting article in the Tulsa World today (here and here), wherein the world of grade school football (yes, grade school football) intersected with the state and federal court system. A third grade football player and his father sought a court order forcing the Indian Nations Football Conference to allow the boy to enter the third-grade football draft or, alternatively, to hold the draft until the question of the child's residency could be settled. The child and his family live in the Union school district, but had made plans to move into the Jenks school district. The lawsuit apparently had a unique sense of urgency because the draft is scheduled for Sunday, July 22, 2007.

The boy and his father initially filed their petition in state court (to be heard by District Judge Gordon McAllister). They had also requested an emergency restraining order. However, the Indian Nations Football Conference filed a Notice of Removal, requesting that a federal judge hear the case. The conference argued that the plaintiffs were pursing a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.

The federal case was initially assigned to Judge G. Frizzell, but, because of a conflict, the case was re-assigned to Judge C. Eagan. The case did not last long in federal court. In a sua sponte Order, Judge Eagan remanded the case back to state court. The Court found that the plaintiff had not pursued a federal claim in his petition. The plaintiffs' counsel had apparently informally told the defendant that he planned to file a claim under the 14th Amendment. However, the Court found this oral statement between counsel insufficient for purposes of federal question subject matter jurisdiction. "[A]n intent to revise a petition does not meet the 'face of the well-pleaded complaint rule.'"

The remand order sent the case back to state court, where both sides appeared before Judge McAllister. Judge McAllister apparently urged the parties to work out an agreement. And they did. The boy will be placed into a "blind draft" to determine which Jenks team he will be on, and his family must move into a house in the Jenks district. According to the article, the football conference, which includes Jenks, Union and 29 other districts, requires players to live in the districts in which they are playing. The rule is in place to prevent recuiting.

The New Five-Part "Garcetti-Pickering" Test

Following a recent Supreme Court case, Garcetti v. Cebalis, 126 S.Ct. 1921 (2006), freedom of speech retaliation claims are now governed by a new five-part test. In Garcetti, the Court held that speech by a public official is only protected if it is engaged-in as a private citizen, not if it is expressed as part of the official's public duties. (An audio recording of the oral argument for Garcetti can be found here.)

Prior to Garcetti, courts charged with evaluating such free-speech claims used a test called the "Pickering-Connick" test. However, in the aftermath of Garcetti, the test has been referred to as the "Garcetti/Pickering" analysis. And, the Courts have added an additional step to the traditional four-part test.

In evaluating retaliation claims, the district court now asks the following questions:

(1) Does the governmental employee speak "pursuant to his official duties"? If so, there is no constitutional protection because the restriction on speech "simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created." Garcetti, 126 S. Ct. at 1960.

(2) If the employee does not speak pursuant to his official duties, but instead speaks as a citizen, is the subject of the speech is a matter of public concern? If the speech is not a matter of public concern, the speech is not protected.

(3) If the employee speaks as a citizen on a matter of public concern, does the employee's interest in commenting on the issue outweigh the interest of the state as employer?

(4) Assuming the employee's interest outweighs the state's interest, was the employee's speech a "substantial factor or motivating factor in a detrimental employment decision"? The employee has the burden of showing this.

(5) Finally, if the employee established that his speech was such a factor, would the employer have taken the same action against the employee in the absence of the protected speech? The employer has the burden of showing this.

The first three steps are to be resolved by a court, and the last two are ordinarily for the trier of fact.

The Tenth Circuit has recently discussed these factors -- in the context of the new 5-part Garcetti-Pickering test -- in the case of Brammer-Hoetler v. Twin Peaks Charter Academy, 2007 WL 2007546 (10th Cir. July 12, 2007). In that case, several former teachers sued a school district claiming they were terminated and retaliated against for exercising certain first amendment rights. The Court reversed a summary judgment in part, but found that a large portion of the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims were barred by the new Garcetti analysis.

The Brammer-Hoetler court struggled to refine the analysis related to determining when an employee speaks pursuant to his official duties. Garcetti declined to articulate a formula for such determinations. After Brammer-Hoetler, it is clear that speech relating to tasks within an employee's "uncontested employment responsibilities" is not protected from regulation (even if such speech relates to an aspect of the job that is not part of the employee's everyday functions). This includes speech that is "generally consistent with the type of activities the employee was paid to do."

An employee's official job description is not conclusive. Speech may relate to official duties even if it deals with activities the employee is not expressly required to perform. If an employee engages in speech during the course of performing an official duty and the speech contributes to the employee's performance of the official duties, the speech is made pursuant to the employee's official duties. Yet, not all speech that occurs at work is made pursuant to the employee's official duties. Rather, the court takes "a practical view of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the speech and the employment relationship."

In Brammer-Hoetler, the Court found nearly all of the speech related to the teacher's "duties as teachers," including: (1) the school's expectations of student behavior, (2) the school's curriculum and pedagogy, and (3) the school's expenditures on instructional aids, furniture and classroom computers. The Court nevertheless held that certain matters were not made pursuant to their official duties, including (1) the resignations of other teachers, (2) whether the school's code of conduct restricted their freedom of speech, (3) staffing levels, (4) the school's expenditures on salaries and bonuses, (5) criticisms of the school board, (6) the visibility of the superintendent and the school board at events, and others.

However, through application of the remainder of the 4 steps of the Garcetti-Pickering test, the Court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to four discrete areas of speech: (1) discussions regarding whether the code of conduct restricted their freedom of speech, (2) matters related to the superintendent's restrictions on speech and association, (3) speech concerning whether the school charter should be renewed, and (4) comments regarding the upcoming board elections. "Speech concerning potential illegal conduct by government officials is inherently a matter of public concern . . . The prospect that the Acadamy's charter might not be renewed is of public concern . . . [and] political speech regarding upcoming Board elections is undoubtedly a matter of public concern." The matter was remanded to the district court for additional proceedings, including the issue of whether the superintendent was entitled to qualified immunity.

Judge Easterbrook, from the Seventh Circuit, has stated that public employers must be able to react to events -- including statements -- that reveal whether employees are faithfully performing their job functions:

Public employers must be able to change assignments in response to events (including statements) that reveal whether employees will be faithful agents of the decisions made by the politically accountable managers. It promotes rather than undermines first amendment values when those who make decisions, and are held accountable for them at the polls, can ensure their implementation within the bureaucracy. Chief Gulledge was entitled to insist that his subordinates not play the “Yes, Minister” game and undermine his directions. The power of transfer is essential if the top of the bureaucracy is to see its decisions through.

See Mills v. City of Evansville, Ind., 452 F.3d 646, 658 (7th Circ. 2006) (cited in Brammer-Hoetler). Further cases will undoubtedly refine the Garcetti-Pickering analysis.

Claims of Deliberate Indifference

The June 2007 issue of For the Defense contains an article regarding civil rights claims of deliberate indifference in the correctional context. The article provides a framework for litigaitng such cases as well as practical defense considerations.

DRI Article - Section 1983 Claims - Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs