
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.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
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!