College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2008 Section 5: Civil Rights Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 5: Civil Rights" (2008). Supreme Court Preview. 212. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/212 Copyright c 2008 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview V. CIVIL RIGHTS In This Section: New Case: 07-665 Pleasant Grove v. Summum Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 266 Summum v. Pleasant Grove p. 274 "With the Commandments, Must City Make Room?" p. 282 Robert Barnes "No Rehearing in Summum Case" p. 283 Geoffrey Fattah "Summum May Display Aphorisms" p. 284 Amy Choat-Nielsen "Justice Denies a Motion on Summum Display: Religious Group's Battle Likely to Face a Bench Trial" p. 286 Geoffrey Fattah "'Aphorisms' in Pleasant Grove?" p. 288 Leigh Dethman "Monuments in Cross Hairs: Attorney Aims to Rid Public Lands of the Markers" p. 290 Laura Sanderson New Case: 06-1595 Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 292 "Supreme Court to Hear Key Anti-Discrimination Case" p. 296 David Savage "High Court Hasn't Closed the Book on Retaliation" p. 298 Marcia Coyle "Court Expands Right to Sue over Retaliation on the Job" p. 302 Charles Lane New Case: 07-1125 Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 304 262 "Court Rejects 'Class of One' Argument" p. 312 Linda Greenhouse "Fist Circuit Says School May Be Liable for Student-on-Student Sexual Harassment" p. 313 Lawyers USA "1st U.S. Civil Court of Appeals Rules Civil Rights Claim Over Alleged Student Harassment Precluded" p. 3 14 Eric T. Berkman New Case: 07-543 AT&T v. Hulteen Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 317 "High Court to Take Up Pregnancy Leave Case" p. 328 Christopher Twarowski "AT&T Pregnancy Suit Ruling Is Overturned" p. 330 Bob Egelko "Court Won't Hear Case" p. 332 Jack Thompson "$25 Million Settlement by Pac Bell" p. 333 Harriet Chiang "Working Mothers Score a Major Victory in Court" p. 335 Seth Rosenfeld New Case: 07-869 Ysura v. Pocatello EducationAssociation Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 337 "Court to Weigh Deduction for Union PACs" p. 345 Mark Walsh "Nonunion Educators Organization Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Decision to Review Idaho Voluntary Contributions Act" p. 347 PR Newswire "Union Leaders Welcome Ruling" p. 348 Dean Ferguson 263 New Case: 07-610 Locke v. Karass Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 350 "Court Will Hear Labor Union Fee Dispute" p. 359 Associated Press "First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Nonmembers Can Be Charged for National Union's Litigation Costs" p. 360 Eric Berkman "Justices Curb Unions' Use of Fees for Politics" p. 363 David Savage "Court Ruling Stipulates Kinds of Fees Public Unions Can Assess Nonmembers" p. 365 Ruth Marcus New Case: 07-581 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 367 "Arbitration of Bias Claims" p. 372 Michael Starr and Christine M. Wilson "Mandatory Arbitration Is Raising Challenges" p. 375 T. Shawn Taylor "High Court Upholds Forced Arbitration" p. 378 Sarah Schafer and Charles Lane "High Court Backs Workers' Right to Sue" p. 380 David Savage New Case: 07-1015 Ashcroft v. Iqbal Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 382 "Court to Hear Challenge from Muslims Held After 9/11" p. 398 Linda Greenhouse "U.S. Officials Fail to Win Release from 9/11 Suit" p. 400 Mark Hamblett "Top Officials Told to Testify in Muslims' Suit" p. 404 Nina Bernstein 264 "Prison Tapes Show Abuse of Terrorism Suspects" p. 406 Dan Eggen New Case: 07-499 Negusie v. Mukasey Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 407 "Fresno Couple in Limbo After Court Withdraws Eligibility for Asylum" p. 409 Bob Egelko "Supreme Court Accepts African Prison Guard's Asylum Appeal" p. 410 Debra Cassens Weiss "Courts Criticize Judges' Handling of Asylum Cases" p. 411 Adam Liptak 265 Pleasant Grove v. Summum 07-665 Ruling Below: Summum v. Pleasant Grove, 483 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2007), cert granted, PleasantGrove v. Summum, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 2995 (2008). Summum, a religious organization, requested to place a monument in a Pleasant Grove city park. The monument would display the beliefs of the Summum, known as the "Seven Aphorisms." The park already contained monuments including one of the Ten Commandments donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The city denied the request and codified its policy regarding monuments to be displayed in parks. Summum brought suit claiming that the city's policy violated the First Amendment. The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief because Summum could not prove that it would prevail on First Amendment grounds. The Tenth Circuit reversed and ordered the city to immediately erect and display the "Seven Aphorisms" monument. Questions Presented: (1) Whether a monument donated to a city park remains protected speech of the donor, even though the monument is displayed and controlled by the municipality. (2) Is a municipal park a public forum under the First Amendment for erection and permanent display of monuments proposed by private parties? (3) Did the Tenth Circuit err by ordering the immediate erection and display of the plaintiff s monument? SUMMUM, a corporate sole and church, Plaintiff-Appellant V. PLEASANT GROVE CITY, Defendant-Apellee Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit Filed April 17, 2007 [Excerpt: Some footnotes and citations omitted.] TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge. § 1292(a)(1) and reverse the District Court's decision. The Plaintiff-Appellant Summum, a religious organization, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § BACKGROUND 1983 for violation of its First Amendment rights against the Defendants-Appellees, the A city park in Pleasant Grove, Utah, contains City of Pleasant Grove, its mayor, city a number of buildings, artifacts, and administrator, and city council members. permanent displays, many of which relate to Summum appeals the District Court's denial or commemorate Pleasant Grove's pioneer of its request for a preliminary injunction. We history. For example, the park contains one of exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Pleasant Grove's first granaries, its first city 266 hall, and its first fire department building. For for the city's violation of the Utah purposes of this appeal, the most important Constitution's free expression and structure is a Ten Commandments monument, establishment provisions. Summum contends donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in that the city violated its rights by excluding its 1971, two years after it established a local monument while allowing other permanent chapter in Pleasant Grove. monuments of an expressive nature (e.g., the Ten Commandments) to be displayed in the In September 2003, Summum, a religious park. In an oral ruling on various motions, the organization with headquarters in Salt Lake District Court denied Summum's request for a City, Utah, sent the mayor of Pleasant Grove preliminary injunction requiring the city to a letter requesting permission to erect a permit the display of Summum's monument monument containing the Seven Aphorisms in the park. Summum subsequently appealed of Summum in the city park. In its letter, this decision, arguing that the District Court Summum stated that its monument would be abused its discretion in denying the injunction similar in size and nature to the Ten based on Summum's First Amendment claim. Commandments monument already present in the park. Approximately two months after DISCUSSION Summum made its request, the mayor sent Summum written notification that the city had I. Preliminary Injunction Standard denied its request because the proposed monument did not meet the city's criteria for We review a district court's decision to deny permanent displays in the park. According to a motion for a preliminary injunction for the letter, all permanent displays in this abuse of discretion, which we have particular park must "directly relate to the characterized as "an arbitrary, capricious, history of Pleasant Grove" or be "donated by whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable groups with long-standing ties to the Pleasant judgment." Schrier v. Univ. of Colorado, 427 Grove community." The following year, in F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2005). "A district August 2004, the city passed a resolution court abuses its discretion when it commits an codifying and expanding upon its alleged error of law or makes clearly erroneous policy for evaluating requests for permanent factual findings." Wyandotte Nation v. displays in the park. The resolution contains a Sebelius, 443 F.3d 1247, 1252 (10th Cir. number of factors the city council must 2006). In reviewing the district court's consider in deciding whether a proposed decision, "[w]e examine the . court's display meets a historical relevance underlying factual findings for clear error, and requirement. In May 2005, Summum renewed its legal determinations de novo." Davis v. its request, sending the mayor another letter Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1111 (10th Cir. with substantially the same language as the 2002). first letter. To prevail on a motion for a preliminary When the city did not respond to its second injunction in the district court, a moving party request, Summum filed suit in federal district must establish that: court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages, for (1) [he or she] will suffer irreparable Pleasant Grove's violation of Summum's free injury unless the injunction issues; speech rights under the U.S. Constitution and (2) the threatened injury .