From Deseret News archives:

ACLU ponders an appeal

Plaza ruling may be hard to overturn, attorney believes

Published: Sunday, May 9, 2004 12:21 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah governing board will meet Monday to consider whether it will appeal last week's federal court ruling that Salt Lake City didn't violate free speech rights by trading away public access on the LDS Church's Main Street Plaza.

ACLU of Utah Executive Director Dani Eyer has already said an appeal is definite enough to "set your watch by." But board members still have to go along, and observers agree that U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball has rendered a fairly seamless decision.

Local First Amendment attorney Randy Dryer said Kimball's thorough, comprehensive rejection of the ACLU's legal claims makes it unlikely the ACLU can succeed on appeal like it did in the first plaza case. (See accompanying plaza time line.)

"Given Judge Kimball's articulation of his rationale and reasoning, it's going to make it harder to be overturned on appeal," Dryer said. "I think his opinion is going to be upheld."

Others agree Kimball's 82-page, detailed dismissal will stand, since the plaza deal was crafted with a potential ACLU suit in mind.

Story continues below
City Council Chairwoman Jill Remington Love noted the council hired two outside attorneys and carefully consulted with the City Attorney's Office before voting on Mayor Rocky Anderson's Unity Center compromise. In that deal, the city traded its public access easement on Main Street Plaza for 2.1 church-owned acres in Glendale where a multimillion dollar, privately funded community center will be built.

"I ended up voting for the mayor's solution because I thought it would end the legal battle," she said.

LDS Church attorney Alan Sullivan said "the mayor and the City Council complied with the Constitution in all respects" in crafting the Unity Center swap.

The mayor said the second suit was devoid of "any legal merit" and "a very, very different lawsuit than the first one." The appeal must counter a ruling that has rejected the underpinnings of the ACLU's arguments.

Those arguments and Kimball's rejections are:

Argument — The ACLU sought a preliminary injunction barring the city's Unity Center solution. The deal caused daily damage to citizen's free speech rights by forbidding expression on the plaza. The injunction would return free speech to the plaza until the plaza case was decided.

Kimball — The argument rings hollow for two reasons — the ACLU filed its injunction request three months after they filed their lawsuit, and waited five months after the city and church closed the Unity Center deal. If the ACLU was so concerned why did it wait five months?

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

Letters: Sales tax unfair

It is easy to tell the difference between a "fair tax" and an unfair tax. A...

Just as the liberals will never stop, I will never stop affirming my...

We have a point guard and a very good back up power forward (Millsap). Our...

Laws regarding marriage.... | 12:39 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009 "...are the same for...

Letters: Show true support

The difference is huge because a vote authorizing the President to go to war...

Letters: Trash or truth?

Demo Dave | 11:28 a.m. If you listened to the shows you complain about you...

These are not MC fans, they have to be TV trying to get everyone relied up....

Any elected official who supports said measures will not get my vote. This...

I'm still not clear on if we are discussing another "urban myth" or if there...

Tavernari has matured

I'm thinking Tavi is open right now....and he should shoot it!

Advertisements
Advertisement