Judge rules for ACLU in Jesus portrait case

U.S. District Court Judge Ivan Lemelle ruled Wednesday the original display of a picture of Jesus in the lobby of the Slidell City Court was unconstitutional, and he ordered the city to pay the American Civil Liberties Union $1 in damages plus “reasonable” attorney’s fees.

Thursday morning, Slidell Mayor said that after talking with City Court Judge Jim Lamz, the city would appeal the ruling.

“I respectfully disagree with the judge’s ruling, but it is my intent to appeal,” Morris said.

The year-long constitutional case of the separation of church and state has garnered national press attention, the wrath of Slidell Morris, rallies and a general outcry in the Slidell community.

In June 2007, the ACLU demanded the Slidell City Court remove a picture of Jesus that hangs in the court’s lobby. The ACLU said it was representing a citizen, known as John Doe in court documents, who was offended by the portrait. The ACLU claimed the Slidell City Court violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment that separates church and state. The ACLU further claimed the picture favored Christianity over other religions in a public building, and was thus unconstitutional.

Lamz said he would not remove the picture until he had gotten a legal opinion from a constitutional lawyer. Members of the Slidell City Council, and Morris, who was quoted as calling the ACLU “the American Taliban,” supported Lamz. There was a rally staged by residents on the courthouse steps that was organized by then state Rep. A.G. Crowe and members of the Slidell clergy.

The ACLU filed suit in July, and the city retained attorney Mike Johnson from the Alliance Defense Fund to represent Slidell.

The ADF specializes in cases of religious freedom and did not charge a fee to the city.

Just before the September 2007 trial in U.S. District Court, the City Court changed the display in the lobby. The new display contained pictures of Hammurabi, Confucius, Solon and other figures of historical jurisprudence alongside the picture of Jesus. The new display was an attempt by Slidell to defuse the situation. According to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, if a religious display is not a “stand-alone,” but is displayed with other legal historical figures, it cannot be deemed a religious display.

Lemelle agreed with the Supreme Court during the Sept. 6, 2007 trial. Though the new display was legal, Lemelle said Slidell would still have to pay damages because of the original display.

Wednesday’s Partial Summary Judgment by Lemelle repeats that the sole display of Jesus in the Slidell City Court was unconstitutional, but the new display was legal because it did not single out one religion over another.

But because of the unconstitutionality of the original display, Slidell must pay damages of $1 plus the ACLU’s attorney fees.

The ruling gives the ACLU 10 days to present its bill for reasonable fees to Lemelle.

“We are deeply disappointed in the ruling,” Johnson said Thursday morning.

Ann Barks, spokesperson for the Slidell City Court, said Lamz would not make a comment on the ruling.

“The case is still open, and the judge said he cannot comment until there is a conclusion,” Barks said.

But Morris had a lot to say about the ruling and the ACLU.

“The American Taliban strikes again,” Morris said. “They are truly an evil organization.”

He compared the ACLU to the Cultural Revolution in Red China during the Sixties, and alluded that the ACLU’s client was imaginary.

“We tried to talk to the man before the trial, but the ACLU would not let us,” Morris said. “As far as I’m concerned that person does not exist.”

As for the damages and attorneys’ fees, Morris doesn’t think it will add up to much.

“The ACLU doesn’t usually have attorney fees. I want to see bills, and the number of hours they worked,” Morris said. “I have nothing but total disdain for that organization.”

Johnson was also unabashed in his opinion of the ACLU.

“The ACLU is on a search and destroy mission against all things religious,” Johnson said. “It’s like they have nothing better to do.”

The Louisiana ACLU released a written statement posted on their Web site Wednesday afternoon. ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman said her organization regretted filing the lawsuit, but claim Slidell didn’t leave them a choice.

“We tried to work with the City of Slidell to have the display altered, and they refused to make any changes, despite our waiting weeks for them to take corrective action,” Esman said in the statement. “As a result, the taxpayers of Slidell will have to pay the price of the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. All of this could and should have been avoided.”

As to Morris’ claims against the ACLU, Esman said that her organization was only defending the people’s constitutional rights.

“People called us un-American and the American Taliban, but all we were doing was supporting the American ideal that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics —everyone should feel that our legal system is here to protect them. This is one of the most basic principles of the Constitution and of fundamental fairness,” Esman said.

Johnson said it may take awhile before a final settlement.

After the ACLU presents its case for attorney fees in 10 days, the city has another 10 days to present counter arguments. Then the city has to proceed with the appeal process.