The Battle of Mount Soledad

Atop San Diego’s Mount Soledad — an 822-foot hill overlooking the seaside village of La Jolla — sits a 29-foot concrete cross. Erected in 1954 to commemorate Korean War veterans, the cross is part of a 170-acre, city-owned park offering breathtaking views of the Pacific coastline. For 35 years, it sat unmolested. Then, in 1989, an atheist named Philip Paulson, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the display of a cross on public land was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Paulson died in 2006, but the litigation he began continues to this day.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Mount Soledad case is a microcosm of the American culture war, with lawsuits used as weapons, federal courts serving as the battleground, and activist judges allying with the ACLU. The secular left has long sought to purge religious symbols and imagery from the public square, and the Mount Soledad cross was an inevitable target on a list that included nativity scenes, Ten Commandment displays, and religious invocations at public meetings.

In 1991, a federal district court judge ruled in favor of the ACLU’s claim that the presence of a privately funded cross on public property violated the California constitution’s establishment clause. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rubber-stamped the district court’s decision in 1993. The city of San Diego faced a dilemma. The U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over disputes involving state law, and the California Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over federal court litigation. The liberal Ninth Circuit was the final word, with no further appellate review. As is typical in “civil rights” cases, the ACLU won substantial attorneys’ fees, thus creating a cottage industry and ensuring that the ACLU’s “pro bono” litigation would continue as long as the cross remained in place.

Rather than bulldoze the cross, the city decided—with the support of 76 percent of voters in a ballot referendum—to sell the land under the cross in order to remove any unconstitutional “taint.” After some legal skirmishing, the city held a sealed-bid auction to sell a half-acre parcel surrounding the base of the cross. The successful bidder wouldn’t be required to retain the cross, though the property would have to be used as a war memorial, and the buyer would be responsible for all future maintenance costs. The Mt. Soledad Memorial Association won with the highest bid of $106,000. This should have put an end to the dispute, as the privately erected cross was now standing on private property. The association expanded the memorial, adding features honoring individual veterans, such as bollards, engraved paving stones, and more than 3,000 commemorative plaques.

Remarkably, Paulson and the ACLU challenged the auction’s legitimacy. The same district judge who ruled in his favor in 1991 rejected the complaint, but Paulson appealed. In 2001, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court ruling. But Paulson still wasn’t finished. He sought an en banc hearing, an extraordinary procedure for correcting internal conflicts among panels. His persistence paid off. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the auction by a 7-4 vote based on an argument Paulson didn’t even make: that it was “rigged” in favor of preserving the cross because—incredibly—any bidders wishing to remove the cross “would be saddled with the costs,” placing them at a financial disadvantage vis-à-vis bidders who intended to preserve the cross. Because the ruling once again rested on an interpretation of California’s constitution, the city couldn’t appeal the Ninth Circuit’s absurd decision.

As the city’s legal options narrowed, the cross dispute began to attract national attention. President George W. Bush in 2004 signed legislation designating the cross as a national veteran’s memorial if the city donated it, which more than three-quarters of voters approved. In the meantime, the city faced ongoing lawsuits along with the prospect of $5,000-a-day fines if officials did not bulldoze the cross. In 2006, the city obtained a stay of the removal order from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. When a state court judge invalidated the transfer to federal ownership, Congress voted overwhelmingly to seize the cross by eminent domain, and the federal government took possession in August 2006.

Yet, litigation continued. After Paulson died, the ACLU found another atheist, Steve Trunk, to take his place. The ACLU challenged federal ownership of the cross as a violation of the U.S. Constitution, but in 2008 the district judge found that the federal government had a secular purpose for acquiring the memorial. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court in 2011, ruling instead that even though Congress had a secular purpose for acquiring the memorial (including the cross), the primary effect was to endorse religious belief. The Supreme Court last June declined to review the case until the Ninth Circuit appeals are exhausted. Meantime, Congress—evidently not hopeful for a changed outcome from the Ninth Circuit—recently approved the transfer of ownership of the cross to the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, repeating the strategy the city attempted without success in 1998. Even Democratic California senator Dianne Feinstein supported the bill, which President Obama signed into law this month.

The ACLU’s tactics, “secular in purpose,” resemble nothing so much as those of a religious fanatic. Its opposition to the cross is implacable. Commenting on the federal government’s transfer of ownership, ACLU lawyer James McElroy said simply: “We’ve been here before.” The Ninth Circuit’s resolve to bulldoze the cross is stymied—at least temporarily—by popular resistance to its destruction. Another quarter century of taxpayer-funded litigation may result.


  1. May Paulson “enjoy” his eternal stay in Hell, and may Trunk soon join him – at least they’ll be able to consult with their lawyers.

  2. The ACLU certainly sounds fanatic. It is sick and Un-American as well.
    Why would the fanatics continue against our military’s wishes. Is the ACLU connected to islamists in some way? If not they are connected in certain attitudes that are traitorous reflected by the current administration. Sad-sick & insane . Wishes for bad tidings to the fanatic ACLU’s attitudes.

  3. Martin L. Church says

    These ACLU lawyers should take a hard look at themselves and get on their knees and ask God for forgiveness for their actions in attempting to remove such a symbol that is as much of our culture as any other symbol. These useless lawyers that are constantly trying to destroy America should ask God for guidance to set them on a course that will replace the hatred they have for America. They are currently on the wrong side of righteousness. But these lawyers are worshiping the “All Mighty Dollar” and representing the scumbags that they had to go out and search for, since the first scumbag that started this mess died. Just goes to prove that Satan is ever present to take up any mission to destroy all things that are pure. May God have mercy on these ungodly scumbags and show them where they have gone astray, and give them the opportunity to make things right before they are standing in front of the Almighty God, the King of Kings, on judgement day. May God Bless America again with peace and prosperity for all.

  4. I think every Christian should put a cross on their lawn or property… just to irritate the hell out of these atheists…. there is nothing they could do for that…. and every Holiday make sure the cross or Christ is visible… maybe they will stay home instead of causing such irritation…

  5. Rottweiler says

    Atheists are the voiced evil that allows no man to be free of their enduring destruction and caustic errosion of morals, faith and ethics. They are one in the same as the Jihadists who behead, push off buildings and burn alive the innocent all for their religious zealot. Atheists will not let a war veteran receive their due honor nor will they be satisfied until a small percentage of these selfish individuals are happy undoing what is fundamentally right. Why don’t they take their law degrees and shove it up their arse or at least do something constructive with all of that wasted knowledge?

  6. Rottweiler says

    Why I have to give a dime to organizations like planned parenthood, ACLU and La Raza from “tax payer money” is kind of like their cause to rid every reference to God off the face of the earth. Kind of ironic how they are federally funded for their causes while they bankrupt those who can not legally defend themselves against the constant legal quagmire they impose and yet they drain our blood like vampires for their causes. They don’t want religion and government and yet they suck off the tit of the taxpayer to use for their selfish means. Pretty sick eh?

  7. NorCal Libertarian says

    There is NOTHING stopping these morons from picking a country that doesn’t like religious crosses and MOVE THERE! Let’s see…Iran, Libya, Vietnam, North Korea….how about those for starters?

Speak Your Mind