From Justice of the Peace Decide Autumn Spaeth (C.D. Cal.) Nov. 26 in Ngo v. City of Westminster (attraction pending); Westminster is a majority-Asian suburb of L.A. (in Orange County):
The next SAC [Second Amended Complaint] allegations are substantively equivalent to the allegations asserted within the FAC. A bagua mirror was displayed on a wall exterior the Mayor’s Workplace entrance entrance, a location that was a part of metropolis corridor. The bagua mirror is an historical Chinese language spiritual image associated to the beliefs of Taoism and Feng Shui. Plaintiff is a religious Catholic who was offended by the show of the bagua mirror (the “Bagua Mirror”).
On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff [who was at the time running for City Council] held a press convention on the Westminster Metropolis Corridor, with the intent to convey consideration to the Bagua Mirror. Through the press convention, Plaintiff eliminated the Bagua Mirror from the wall. Westminster law enforcement officials arrested Plaintiff. Following the press convention, the Mayor publicly criticized Plaintiff and claimed Plaintiff was not match to be a member of the Westminster Metropolis Council attributable to Plaintiff’s standing as a prison defendant….
The Supreme Court docket has dominated that authorities conduct which the framers of the First Modification would have understood to ascertain a faith violates the Institution Clause. Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. (2022). Coercion, similar to making a non secular observance obligatory, forcing anybody to attend church, or forcing anybody to have interaction in formal spiritual train, are “hallmarks of non secular institutions the framers sought to ban after they adopted the First Modification.” In contrast, authorities conduct which within the historical past and understanding of the Institution Clause was not thought of impermissible coercion, doesn’t violate the Institution Clause. The “Institution Clause have to be interpreted by reference to historic practices and understandings.” The Institution Clause doesn’t “compel the federal government to purge from the general public sphere something an goal observer may moderately infer endorses or partakes of the spiritual.”
The SAC alleges that the Bagua Mirror was a non secular image displayed exterior the Mayor’s workplace on a metropolis corridor wall. The SAC alleges that “Plaintiff is a religious catholic who was offended by show” of the Bagua Mirror. Neither celebration has briefed in any element how the Bagua Mirror show suits within the historic understandings and practices of this nation concerning the Institution Clause. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court docket has famous there “is an unbroken historical past of official acknowledgment by all three branches of presidency of the position of faith in American life from at the least 1789.” Lynch v. Donnelly (1984).
In Lynch v. Donnelly, the Supreme Court docket held {that a} metropolis owned and displayed Christmas nativity scene together with the Toddler Jesus, Mary and Joseph didn’t violate the Institution Clause. In that opinion, the Supreme Court docket opined on the lengthy historical past and custom of presidency sponsored and displayed spiritual symbols. For instance, “[a]rt galleries supported by public revenues show spiritual work of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, predominantly impressed by one spiritual religion.” “The Nationwide Gallery in Washington, maintained with Authorities assist, for instance, has lengthy exhibited masterpieces with spiritual messages, notably the Final Supper, and work depicting the Delivery of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, amongst many others with specific Christian themes and messages.”
The Supreme Court docket famous, “The very chamber through which oral arguments on this case had been heard is adorned with a notable and everlasting—not seasonal—image of faith: Moses with the Ten Commandments.” There are numerous examples of “governmental sponsorship of graphic manifestations of [religious] heritage.”
From the Supreme Court docket’s recounting, it’s clear that government-sponsored and displayed spiritual symbols have lengthy been a part of this nation’s historical past and practices, with out violating the Institution Clause. Subsequently, the Court docket finds the allegation {that a} Bagua Mirror was displayed on Metropolis property inadequate to state a declare for violation of the Institution Clause. As well as, the SAC’s allegation that Plaintiff was offended on the sight of the Bagua Mirror doesn’t quantity to any diploma of governmental coercion. Offense doesn’t equate to coercion. Kennedy.
Plaintiff’s second declare asserts a violation of the First Modification’s freedom of speech protections by the Police Chief and Mayor. Particularly, the FAC alleges that these defendants prompted the Westminster Police Division to arrest Plaintiff throughout the press convention in retaliation for Plaintiff’s train of speech…. Nonetheless, the SAC additionally alleges that earlier than his arrest, Plaintiff eliminated the Bagua Mirror from the general public space exterior the workplace of the Mayor….
Underneath California Penal Code part 594, an individual is responsible of vandalism if he maliciously defaces, damages, or destroys any actual or private property not his personal. Underneath California Penal Code part 484, an individual is responsible of larceny if he steals, takes, carries, leads or drives away the private property of one other…. Upon [the] details [as alleged by the FAC], a fairly prudent individual would conclude there was a good likelihood Plaintiff dedicated larceny or vandalism in damaging the article or the wall. “That Defendant included some criticism of the federal government doesn’t essentially imbue his conduct with First Modification safety.” As a result of the SAC doesn’t plead the absence of possible trigger for Plaintiff’s arrest, this declare fails and is dismissed….
Appears typically appropriate to me.
