
Robert E. Levy
Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Robert E. Levy
Date: August 14, 2014

Partner
201-896-7163 rlevy@sh-law.comThe Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit that alleged that exhibiting the artifact violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J. revolves around a 17‐foot high column and cross‐beam retrieved from World Trade Center debris that gave many the impression of a Latin cross, a symbol associated with Christianity. Workers removed the beam and erected it onto a platform at the West Street edge of the recovery site, where it eventually became known as the “Cross at Ground Zero.”
Given the significance of the artifact, it was included as part of the Museum’s exhibition called “Finding Meaning at Ground Zero.”
Workers at Ground Zero struggled to come to terms with the horrific circumstances in which they found themselves. Some sought to counter the sense of utter destruction by holding on to something recognizable, whether a metal bolt or shard of glass or a marble salvaged from the debris. Others, grappling with the absence of survivors and the regular recovery of human remains, found purpose by forging relationships with relatives of a particular victim, carrying a photograph or memorial card to bolster their resolve.
The American Atheists, Inc. alleged that the display of the cross, particularly without any accompanying plaque or similar item acknowledging that atheists were among those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, or who participated in ensuing rescue efforts, violates the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the lawsuit, and the Second Circuit affirmed. In reaching its decision, the appeals court highlighted that “the Supreme Court recently reiterated that caution when, in rejecting an Establishment Clause challenge to legislative prayer, it observed that the Constitution no more permits the mandating of ‘a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred’ than it permits prescribing a religious orthodoxy.”
With regard to the Cross at Ground Zero, the Court held that “an objective observer would not view the display as endorsing religion generally, or Christianity specifically, because it is part of an exhibit entitled ‘Finding Meaning at Ground Zero;’ the exhibit includes various nonreligious as well as religious artifacts that people at Ground Zero used for solace; and the textual displays accompanying the cross communicate its historical significance within this larger context.” Finally, the court found that “there is no evidence that the static display of this genuine historic artifact excessively entangles the government with religion.”
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Author: Graham Staton

Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!