|
10.07.08
ACLU Files Lawsuit Calling for Religious Documents to be Removed from Courtroom
Sues Judge Who Lost 2002 Court Case on Posting of Ten Commandments
MANSFIELD, OH- The ACLU of Ohio filed a lawsuit today in the U.S.
District Court of Northern Ohio against Richland County Judge James
DeWeese. In its lawsuit, the ACLU claims he has continued posting
documents in his courtroom that promote one religion over another. The
ACLU previously won a case in 2002 against him for posting the Ten
Commandments in his courtroom.
ACLU of Ohio Cooperating Attorney Mike Honohan said, "Judge DeWeese was
already ordered to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom, yet
he continues to defy the constitution and display religious documents.
As a steward of the court, he should comply with the court’s order
rather than try to find a backdoor method to promote his own religious
agenda in the courtroom."
In July 2000, Judge DeWeese designed and hung a poster bearing the Ten
Commandments in his courtroom. The ACLU filed suit against him and in
June 2002, the U.S. District Court of Northern Ohio agreed that he could
not display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. The decision was
upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court
declined review.
Judge DeWeese’s current display includes what he describes as “humanist
principles” posted alongside the Ten Commandments. Below them is a
statement saying he believes in moral absolutes such as the Ten
Commandments rather than moral relatives such as the humanist precepts.
Honohan said, “The most troubling aspect of Judge DeWeese’s courtroom
display is that it states he uses his religious views in his
professional role as a judge. Courts should be a place where all people
are treated equally, but those who enter his courtroom are given the
message they will be judged based on his personal religious views.”
In May 2008, the ACLU of Ohio asked federal Judge Kathleen O’Malley to
hold Judge DeWeese in contempt of court for displaying the Ten
Commandments in his courtroom, a violation of her order. She declined to
do so because the display was not a duplicate of the previous sign and
included other text. However, she did not rule on whether the current
sign was constitutional.
Honohan concluded, “Although the original text is slightly altered,
Judge DeWeese’s intention to promote religion in his courtroom remains
the same. Promoting one set of religious beliefs over another in a court
of law is not only illegal, it is unfair. The court must put an end to
Judge DeWeese’s blatant disregard for the law.”
-30-
Read the Complaint
View the information displayed in Judge DeWeese's courtroom
|
news center
volunteer