District Court to ACLU: Nothing Contemptuous about Comparing and Contrasting Values

ACLJ Welcomes Court’s Dismissal of ACLU’s Contempt Charge against Ohio Judge

CLEVELAND, Aug. 11, 2008—"It is truly unfortunate that the ACLU apparently has nothing better to do than to file baseless charges against a dedicated public servant." - Francis J. Manion, ACLJ senior counsel

A U.S. District Court sitting in Cleveland has formally dismissed a motion brought by the ACLU of Ohio to hold in contempt of court Richland County Judge James DeWeese for displaying in his Mansfield courtroom a poster entitled "Philosophies of Law in Conflict."  The ACLU charged that DeWeese's display of the poster - which graphically compares and contrasts the Ten Commandments with Seven Humanist Principles - violated a 2002 injunction barring him from displaying a poster consisting solely of the Ten Commandments under the caption "Rule of Law."  In its motion to hold DeWeese in contempt, the ACLU claimed that DeWeese was in "public defiance" of the previous court order and, by his actions, was "undermining the administration of justice."
 
But U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen O'Malley, the same judge who issued the 2002 injunction, disagreed.  In an Order dated August 8, 2008, Judge O'Malley held that Judge DeWeese is not in contempt of the prior Order and, further, described the ACLU's attempt to use the 2002 injunction in this fashion as "misplaced."  The court noted that the current poster is significantly changed from the one ruled on in 2002, with the two contrasting sets of principles accompanied by a lengthy commentary written by DeWeese in which he discusses the differences between a legal philosophy based on moral absolutes and one based on moral relatives.  Judge O'Malley concluded that "the Court can find no principled basis upon which to find that, or even fully consider whether, the new display is constitutionally impermissible."
 
ACLJ Senior Counsel Francis J. Manion, who represented DeWeese in opposing the ACLU's charge, commented that: "It is truly unfortunate that the ACLU apparently has nothing better to do than to file baseless charges against a dedicated public servant like Judge DeWeese.  A first year law student - looking at the facts and law of this case - could have told the ACLU that there never was a legal basis for this ridiculous contempt charge.  We're pleased that the Court acted expeditiously in tossing out this latest gambit in the ACLU's ongoing harassment of Judge DeWeese."
 
Manion went on to add, "It was clear from the start of this latest episode in the ACLU's harassment of Judge DeWeese that the ACLU was choosing to ignore current law regarding public displays that include the Decalogue in an educational or historical setting.  The U.S. Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear - in cases brought by the ACLU itself - that government officials are permitted to discuss, acknowledge and display the Ten Commandments in a context that underscores the role played by the Decalogue in 'history, civilization or ethics’ [Stone. v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)].  Any reasonable person can see that this is precisely what Judge DeWeese's current display does."
 
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.  The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.  The ACLJ’s online newsroom can be accessed at www.DeMossNewsPond.com/ACLJ.