CA high court ruling upholds constitutionality of Mt. Soledad cross

by Ed Thomas
February 28, 2007

Like This Page? Tweet

(OneNewsNow.com) - - Supporters who fought to save the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross in San Diego have one more victory to celebrate -- a decision by the California Supreme Court not to review the Fourth District Court of Appeals ruling that determined it was constitutional to transfer the property from the city to the federal government.

A voter referendum, Proposition A, approved the action in July 2005 -- but it was immediately challenged by the late atheist Philip Paulson, who also sought to have the cross removed from city property.

Teresa Mendoza is an associate counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, which served as counsel for San Diegans for the Mount Soledad Memorial in the state case. A state court judge "invalidated Proposition A," she explains, "and the city of San Diego and the Thomas More Law Center appealed that decision to the intermediate Court of Appeals."

That court, the Fourth District Court of Appeals, reversed the state superior court ruling of last November declaring the land transfer unconstitutional. And last week, the California Supreme Court denied the late plaintiff's and the American Civil Liberties Union's request to review the case and prevent it from being used as legal precedent.

The court's decision follows last month's ruling in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated a 2006 federal district court order to take the Mount Soledad cross down. Mendoza says this latest ruling is a great development, in that the California Supreme Court has essentially affirmed the legal soundness of the appeals court's ruling.

The court declared that "Proposition A did not violate the California Constitution, which prohibits showing a preference for religion or aiding a religious purpose," Mendoza says. And, she points out, this favorable decision in the Mt. Soledad Cross legal battle can now be used as a precedent for future California cases involving religious questions of state constitutional law.