Thou shall not defy a federal court order

On Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2003, the 5,280 pound Ten Commandments monument was removed from the Alabama State Judicial Building, bringing the state’s Chief Justice Roy S. Moore in compliance with a federal court order requiring the removal.

In the 2002 case Glassroth v. Moore, the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division granted injunctive relief requiring Chief Justice Moore to remove the monument located in the building’s rotunda. The order mandated removal within 30 days of the Nov. 18, 2002 decision. The court predicated its order on a violation of the First Amendment’s “establishment” clause.

On Dec. 19, 2002, the court issued a permanent injunction ordering, “The chief justice to remove the monument by Jan. 3, 2003.” At that time the chief justice filed a notice of appeal and requested the federal court to stay the injunction while the order was on appeal; the court granted the stay on Dec. 23, 2002, citing potential harm to the Alabama Supreme Court’s chief justice’s interest in the case.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, seated in Atlanta, affirmed the lower court’s Nov. 18, 2002 decision requiring removal of the monument. The appellate decision, dated July 2, 2003, also cited First Amendment concerns with placement of the Ten Commandments in the Judicial Building’s rotunda.

Before receipt of the appellate court’s mandate, the district court held a conference call on July 28, 2003. The court sought to determine whether Chief Justice Moore asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to stay its order requiring removal of the display as provided by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41: “A party may move to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.”

Counsel for the chief justice indicated to the lower court that he was aware of the rule. Unbelievably, he had not filed a motion pursuant to Rule 41 requesting such relief.

Having received the appellate court’s decision on Aug. 1, 2003, the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division issued a final judgment, pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring removal of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building to a private area. In its final order, the court required that the monument be removed by Aug. 20, 2003. Additionally, the court stressed that its order necessitated Chief Justice Moore, or the state of Alabama to remove the monument and not federal personal. Apparently there was a war of Northern Aggression during the 1800s, which set precedent for this aspect of the federal court’s decision.

Chief Justice Moore defied the district court’s order and was removed from his position, with pay, pending review by an ethics committee. It is important to note that Chief Justice Moore could have moved the monument to a private area of the building and avoided the entire mess.

More importantly, the Alabama chief justice should have utilized appellate procedure, Rule 41, allowing for a stay until the United States Supreme Court decided the matter under writ of certiorari. This would have bought him time under color of law. Chief Justice Moore, presumably an attorney by education and trade, failed to utilize proper procedure. Rather, his continuing rant citing natural law over numerous court decisions tainted his reputation and called into question the character of Alabama’s Supreme Court’s chief justice.

In fact, the chief justice has raised a monument to the level of deity. Perhaps he should have expressed more concern over his idolatry and lack of faith rather than criticize those who ruled against him. Not only has Chief Justice Moore caused a rift in American Federalism, he has also tainted the religious freedoms enjoyed by all. What is worse, Chief Justice Moore showed all that he, and/or his counsel, did not follow the rules of procedure. When one separates the wheat from the chaff, it is all about procedure.