A federal judge ruled July 29 that the controversial 29-foot-tall Mount Soledad cross can remain a part of the Veterans War Memorial. After 19 years of litigation, are the legal battles over?
“I was very disappointed in the decision but we’ve been in front of that judge before “¦ He’s supposed to follow the 9th Circuit but I’m sure he did what he thought was right,” said James McElroy, attorney for lead plaintiff Steve Trunk. “Everybody knows this case is going to be decided by the appellate court and not by this court.”
Although Judge Larry Alan Burns ruled the publicly located Mount Soledad cross is not violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by integrating church and state because the memorial is historic and memorializes veterans who served in battle, some can’t see past the cross’s religious inferences.
“The cross is the most famous, powerful Christian religious symbol,” McElroy said, adding that his suit focuses solely on the cross, not the memorial. “That’s why it’s hard for us to believe that this judge could decide against us.”
The City of San Diego was first sued over the presence of the Mount Soledad cross on public parkland in 1989. The Mount Soledad Memorial Association (MSMA) then began changing the memorial. Members of the organization installed a bronze plaque on the cross, stating it is a veterans memorial.
The organization built six walls displaying 2,000 memorial veterans plaques with myriad religious and other symbols, with room for citizens to purchase more, according to legal documents.
“When the symbol at issue ” here a Latin cross ” conveys not simply a religious message but also a secular message, drawing a sharp line can be hard to do,” Judge Burns said in the 36-page ruling.
“That said, and with all respect to the Plaintiffs in this case”¦ the Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice,” continued Burns in his ruling.
Cross advocates applauded the decision.
“I was delighted by the ruling,” said Phil Thalheimer of San Diegans for Mount Soledad National War Memorial and a candidate for City Council.
“It explained why it was not a real issue but a historical monument. Hopefully the other side will stop and let this thing go ” it’s only costing the public money,” he said
Judge Burns analyzed La Jolla’s hilltop in his ruling, beginning with the conception of the first Soledad cross nearly a century ago, then ending with the dynamics Congress played to the veterans memorial.
Private citizens erected Soledad’s first redwood cross in 1913, Burns wrote. According to legal documents, that cross was either stolen or destroyed, so a group replaced it with another cross.
The second cross blew down in 1952, so religious and citizens groups formed the Mount Soledad Memorial Association to create a bigger cross. In 1954, the MSMA erected a 43 foot-tall cross made of recessed concrete, with a base and surrounded by a fence; the Latin cross sits atop Soledad Mountain today.
La Jolla Town Council sponsored a 1954 Easter Sunday ceremony, dedicating the memorial to veterans of World Wars I and II and the Korean War.
“It was dedicated on Easter Sunday, not Veterans Day or Memorial Day. Every Easter Sunday it is dedicated again to our savior Jesus Christ. It is really hard to suggest that it is not a religious symbol ” that’s why people go up there on Easter Sunday,” McElroy said.
McElroy said he plans to bring the case to the appellate court, probably in a year and a half to two years.
“I think the argument’s the same as it was 20 years ago,” he said. “The facts have not changed dramatically.”
One aspect that has changed, however, is that the city has relinquished ownership of the cross and the land it sits on to the federal government.
“The 9th [Circuit] has ruled on this several times and said that the cross is a religious symbol,” McElroy said.
“That’s what the court decided, that the cross can remain because it’s not really a religious symbol, and that just flies in the face of everything the appellate court says,” he said.