City of Bloomfield v. Felix

Description: Two Bloomfield, New Mexico, residents claiming to be offended by a Ten Commandments monument among others on the lawn of City Hall filed suit through their American Civil Liberties Union attorneys in 2012 in an attempt to have the monument uprooted.

Tuesday, Feb 7, 2017

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s order Monday in Felix v. City of Bloomfield denying the city’s request to review a lower court’s decision to uproot a Ten Commandments monument from the lawn of City Hall:

“Americans shouldn’t be forced to censor or whitewash religion’s role in history simply to appease the emotional response of two offended individuals with a political agenda. As the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, a passive monument, such as this display of the Ten Commandments, accompanied by others acknowledging our nation’s religious heritage cannot be interpreted as an establishment of religion. This court’s order failed to recognize ‘the historical understanding of what an establishment of religion is and what the First Amendment actually prohibits.’ Because of this misinterpretation of the law, we are consulting with our client to consider their options for appeal.”

Excerpts from the dissenting opinion filed by Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr., and joined by Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich in opposition to the majority’s panel opinion supporting the court’s order (citations omitted):

p. 3: “This decision continues the error of our Establishment Clause cases. It does not align with the historical understanding of an ‘establishment of religion’ and thus with what the First Amendment actually prohibits.”

p. 3: “To make sense of the Establishment Clause, one must understand the historical background that informed the Framers’ use of the word ‘establishment.’”

p. 11: Citing the majority’s conditions for public monuments of limited religious nature under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause: “Yet the City of Bloomfield did each of those things. It accompanied the monument with secular markers such as the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Gettysburg Address. It avoided a government-sponsored or government-led religious ceremony at the unveiling, instead allowing private persons to run the event. And it provided not one but two disclaimers, one on the monument itself and one on a freestanding sign on the City Hall lawn. What more should the City have done, besides not having a Ten Commandments display at all?”

p. 13: “Though this court may view the placement of the Ten Commandments as unwise, unnecessary, or even aesthetically displeasing, we should defer to local government decisions absent an actual violation of the First Amendment.”

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

# # # | Ref. 17556

Commentary

Why remove the Ten Commandments? (Santa Fe New Mexican, 2017-07-15)

Kevin Theriot

Previous News Releases

NM town may appeal 10th Circuit ruling against 10 Commandments monument

Wednesday, Nov 9, 2016

10th Circuit to hear NM Ten Commandments case

Tuesday, Sep 29, 2015

Court puts hold on NM Ten Commandments decision while appeal moves forward

Wednesday, Aug 27, 2014

Legal Documents

Amicus briefs in support of petitioner: City of Bloomfield v. Felix

Reply brief for petitioner: City of Bloomfield v. Felix

Complaint: Felix v. City of Bloomfield

District court answer brief: Felix v. City of Bloomfield

Post-trial brief: Felix v. City of Bloomfield

District court decision: Felix v. City of Bloomfield

Notice of appeal: Felix v. City of Bloomfield

Stay order: Felix v. City of Bloomfield

10th Circuit opinion: Felix v. City of Bloomfield

10th Circuit en banc order: Felix v. City of Bloomfield

Petition for writ of certiorari: City of Bloomfield v. Felix

Related Resources

ABOUT Jonathan Scruggs

Jonathan Scruggs serves as senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy and the Center for Conscience Initiatives with Alliance Defending Freedom. In this role, he identifies new litigation opportunities and develops new strategies for protecting free speech and religious liberty in collaboration with the chief legal counsel and litigation team directors. As the leader for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Scruggs oversees the litigation team defending the rights of professionals and business owners to live out their faith as well as the litigation efforts to protect equal opportunities for women in athletics. Since joining ADF in 2006, Scruggs has worked on and prevailed in a variety of cases that protect the right of people to freely express their faith in their business, at school, and in the public square. He earned his J.D. at Harvard Law School and is admitted to practice in the states of Arizona and Tennessee. Scruggs is also admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and multiple federal district and appellate courts.

ABOUT David Cortman

David A. Cortman serves as senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation with Alliance Defending Freedom. He has been practicing law since 1996, and currently supervises a team of over 40 attorneys and legal staff who specialize in constitutional law, focusing on religious freedom, sanctity of life, and marriage and family. Cortman has litigated hundreds of constitutional law cases including two victories at the U.S. Supreme Court. In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, he secured a 7-2 victory that overturned Missouri’s denial of a religious school’s participation in a state funding program. Cortman also argued Reed v. Town of Gilbert, securing a 9-0 ruling that prohibits the government from discriminating against religious speech. A member of the bar in Georgia, Florida, Arizona, and the District of Columbia, he is also admitted to practice in over two dozen federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Cortman obtained his J.D. magna cum laude from Regent University School of Law.