Supreme Court Rejects Putting Bayview Cross Case On Fast Track

October 11, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from the city of Pensacola to speed up consideration of a case about the removal of a decades-old cross from a city park.

The city appealed to the Supreme Court last month after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cross in Bayview Park should be removed because it violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Four plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the cross, saying its presence on public property was unconstitutional.

In addition to appealing last month to the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for the city also requested that justices “expedite” consideration of whether to hear the case. The request focused, in part, on another pending case involving the removal of a cross in Maryland. The American Legion filed an appeal this year in the Maryland case, which is about a memorial to fallen World War I soldiers.

“Expedited consideration of the petition … is warranted in this (Pensacola) case so that the (Supreme) Court can consider the petition alongside the petitions in American Legion,” the city’s attorneys wrote. “American Legion, like this case, involves a court of appeals’ ruling that displaying a decades-old cross violates the Establishment Clause. Both cases present the same question about the proper Establishment Clause test to apply to religious displays.”

The Supreme Court, as is common, did not explain its reasons Tuesday for denying the request to speed up consideration of the Pensacola case. It has not decided whether to hear the Maryland case, according to an online docket.


8 Responses to “Supreme Court Rejects Putting Bayview Cross Case On Fast Track”

  1. Tabby on October 13th, 2018 9:33 am

    @Grandlocust—So you have equated that opposing the shameful reasons, and voicing that opposition, is hypocritical to the Word of God ?
    Wow, good thing you won’t determine where my soul will spend eternity. I will oppose anything foolish that affects me or the overall degredation of society.

  2. Pensacola Resident on October 12th, 2018 5:14 pm

    Why can’t we put it on the ballot and vote on whether to keep it or not? Shouldn’t our voices be heard? Let Pensacola residents decide what they want instead of a judge or a handful of individuals.

  3. nod on October 11th, 2018 9:46 am

    my religion is anti trees, so trees on public property offend me. they should be removed. that makes just as much sense as the four who filed the lawsuit, some people just go out of their way to be offended,

  4. anne1of2 on October 11th, 2018 9:37 am

    Good. Gives the rest of more time to go to the cross and pray.

  5. retired on October 11th, 2018 8:53 am

    this is why you vote NOT to retain the judge.

  6. Grand Locust on October 11th, 2018 8:00 am

    And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men………..Matthew six, and politicians grandstanding are looking to gain political capital, but a Christian understands Jesus’s words when he said render onto caesar what is caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s. Caesar does not want the cross in the Park… problem for the faithful who follow scripture, but the hypocrites will yell at the top of their lungs to gain attention for themselves. The Supreme Court will not grant Cert., and the lower Appellate Court ruling will stand and the cross will be removed and not one Christian will be harmed who is faithful to the words of Jesus.

  7. Myla on October 11th, 2018 3:05 am

    Please leave the Cross. It belongs there. Thank you.

  8. tooma on October 11th, 2018 2:07 am

    Just another indication of the downward spiral of today’s society…

Have a comment on this story?

We welcome your comments on this story, but there are some rules to follow::

(1) Be Nice. No comments that slander another, no racism, no sexism, no personal attacks.

(2) No Harrassing Comments. If someone says something bad about you, don't respond. That's childish.

(3) No Libel. That's saying something is not true about someone. Don't do it.

(4) Keep it clean. Nothing vulgar, obscene or sexually related. No profanity or obvious substitutions. Period.

(5) reserves the right to remove any comments that violate our rules or we think to be inappropriate. We are not responsible for what is posted. Comments may not appear right away until they are approved by a moderator.

(6) Limit your comments to the subject in this story only, and limit comments to 300 words or less. Do not post copyrighted material. Comments will not be added to stories that are over 30 days old.

(7) No posts may advertise a commercial business or political group, or link to another commercial web site or political site of any kind.