Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Because law-enforcement officials carry with them the threat of force at all
times, they must be exceedingly cautious when it comes to matters of faith so as to
avoid religious coercion. Officers and law-enforcement staff may not proselytize
employees, arrestees, witnesses, community members, or anyone else they come into
contact with as a result of carrying out their official duties. Nor, even in less coercive
settings, may law enforcement officers use their official positions or government
property to endorse religious messages or otherwise promote religious activities
(such as through bumper stickers or decals, their business cards or signs posted in
police facilities).
Establishment Clause
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between
religion and non-religion. McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005).
To that end, government sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible
because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are non-
adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and
an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of
the political community. See Santa Fe Independent Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290,
30910 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (OConnor, J.,
concurring)); see also ACLU of Ohio Found. v. DeWeese, 633 F.3d 424, 435 (6th Cir.
2011) (enjoining as unconstitutional county judges courtroom display of poster
containing Ten Commandments, and religious statements such as God is the final
authority, and we acknowledge His unchanging standards of behavior, and I join the
Founders in personally acknowledging the importance of Almighty Gods fixed moral
standards for restoring the moral fabric of this nation, as well as judges distribution
of pamphlets declaring that God has defined for humanitys own good and happiness
what is right and wrong and that those standards cannot be altered or abolished);
Doe v. Village of Crestwood, 917 F.2d 1476, 1478 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that villages
sponsorship of Catholic mass during citywide festival violated endorsement test);
Hall v. Bradshaw, 630 F.2d 1018, 1020 (4th Cir.1980) (prohibiting inclusion of
Motorists Prayer on official, state-published map); see also Wirtz v. City of South
Bend, 813 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1057 (N.D. Ind. 2011) (Courts have safeguarded this
provision by drawing a wide perimeter around it and preventing governments from
endorsing one religion over others or religion over non-religion.); Davies v. Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors, F.Supp.3d ----2016 WL 1383458, (C.D. Cal. Apr.
6, 2016) (permanently enjoining addition of Latin cross to official county seal);
Summers v. Adams, 669 F. Supp.2d 637, 657-60 (D.S.C. 2009) (ruling that state DMV
AMERICAN CIVIL could not to issue a license plate containing the words I Believe and a cross
LIBERTIES UNION OF
VIRGINIA
superimposed on a stained glass window); Newman v. City of East Point, 181
701 E. FRANKLIN ST. F.Supp.2d 1374, 1380-81 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (holding that citys funding and promotion
SUITE 1412
RICHMOND, VA 23219
of prayer breakfast ran afoul of the Establishment Clause); cf. Johnson v. Poway
T/804.644.8080 Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954, 957, 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (upholding removal of
WWW .ACLUVA.ORG
banners hung in public-school classroom to emphasize various religious messages
including, In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, God Bless America, and God
Shed His Grace on Thee).
Conclusion
Law-enforcement and local government officials who wish to build trust
between the public and their law enforcement agencies should be cautious about any
religious display that constructs a barrier between their department and any people
in their communities, including those who do not share the department leaders faith
or the majority faith in the departments community. We hope that you and the local
government officials who have a role in approving your budget will consider carefully
the potential legal claims that can be raised (establishment clause, violation of free
exercise, and religious discrimination) and the potential adverse consequences on
community policing and taxpayers before allowing religious displays by law
enforcement that can be seen as government action preferring religion over non-
religion or one faith over another.