WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today declined to review three cases with First Amendment implications.
A National Park Service policy of asking visitors to avoid walking near Utah's Rainbow Bridge out of respect for American Indian religion remains in place after the justices let stand a ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 10th Circuit had dismissed a 2000 lawsuit charging the policy at the world's largest natural bridge unconstitutionally endorsed religion. Two visitors, Evelyn Johnson and Earl DeWaal, had alleged they were forced to leave the area and threatened with arrest several times.
The Denver-based 10th Circuit ruled last March that Johnson and DeWaal suffered no personal injury and thus lacked standing to file suit. As a result, the appeals court did not consider the merits of whether the policy violated the First Amendment separation of church and state.
Navajos, Hopi and other Indian groups consider Rainbow Bridge a sacred site that should be approached closely only during their traditional religious ceremonies. A prehistoric altar once stood near the arch, but it was destroyed in the 1930s.
The Denver-based Mountain States Legal Foundation originally brought suit in 2000 on behalf of members of the Natural Arch and Bridge Society, who claimed the Park Service was illegally restricting the rights of visitors to the bridge, which is 290 feet high and 275 feet wide.
Society members contended that park rangers went beyond the rule's voluntary nature.
The case is DeWaal v. Alston, 04-367.
A South Florida city's zoning law barring churches and synagogues from locating in its downtown business district remains unenforceable after the high court justices, without comment, declined to review a ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Atlanta-based 11th Circuit held that the Surfside, Fla., law was discriminatory because it allowed private, nonsecular clubs to locate downtown.
The case pitted Surfside against two synagogues, Young Israel and Midrash Sephardi, which preferred the downtown location because it was within walking distance of their members' homes. Orthodox Jewish tradition bars driving on the Sabbath and Jewish high holidays.
Surfside, which has a population of nearly 5,000, had argued its zoning law properly advanced its economic interest in generating tax revenue. If it allowed one religious group to locate downtown, it would have to permit other faiths, as well, creating a wide area of low-revenue establishments in the area, it said.
Disagreeing, the 11th Circuit ruled that Surfside violated federal law because it allowed nonsecular private clubs in downtown. Those groups are similar to religious organizations, the court said, in that members meet to pursue social, educational or recreational interests.
The case is Surfside v. Midrash Sephardi, 04-469.
The justices left in place an Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys, refusing to review its constitutionality as asked by appellants who said consumers had a right to sexual privacy.
Without comment, justices let stand an 11th Circuit ruling that said Alabama had a right to police the sale of devices that can be sexually stimulating.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the challenge on behalf of merchants and users seeking to overturn the 1998 state law. They say the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized homosexual sex on privacy grounds, protects sex-toy users from unwarranted state intrusion in their homes.
"The sexual devices covered by the statute have many recognized beneficial uses and are used by consenting adults in deeply private acts that are beyond the reach of government regulation," argued the filing on behalf of Sherri Williams, an adult novelty retailer, and seven other women and two men.
A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit disagreed. It said in a ruling last July that siding with the sex-toy merchants could open the door to the legalization of undesirable sexual behavior such as prostitution.
"If the people of Alabama in time decide that prohibition on sex toys is misguided, or ineffective, or just plain silly, they can repeal the law and be finished with the matter," the court panel said.
"On the other hand, if we today craft a new fundamental right by which to invalidate the law, we would be bound to give that right full force and effect in all future cases including, for example, those involving adult incest, prostitution, obscenity, and the like."
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett said the decision was based on the "erroneous foundation" that private sexual acts can be made a crime in the name of promoting "public morality."
The Alabama law bans only the sale of sex toys, not their possession, and it doesn't regulate other items including condoms or virility drugs. Residents also may lawfully purchase sex toys out of state for use in Alabama, or use them if the devices have other recognized medical or therapeutic uses.
The case is Williams v. Alabama, 04-849.