Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's supporters plan a
demonstration Monday in Montgomery, with a counter-protest planned by atheists
in the court fight over the Ten Commandments monument.
The pro-Moore rally is organized by a Texas-based veterans group expecting a
large turnout at the Capitol in support of Moore and the 5,280-pound monument
ordered removed by a federal judge.
American Veterans in Domestic Defense, a three- year-old organization in
Houston, has been organizing the rally since U.S. Judge Myron Thompson ruled
last month that Moore's religious display in the rotunda of the state Judicial
Building is unconstitutional.
Rally spokesman Kelly Hughes told The Montgomery Advertiser that Moore's
supporters "are packing buses" to get to the rally. Hughes said this
is one of those issues that will draw from both the patriot movement and
Christians.
The rally comes three days before a scheduled hearing before Thompson, who is
expected to order the display taken out of the rotunda within 15 days. Moore's
lawyers have appealed Thompson's earlier order.
American Atheists Inc. planned a counter demonstration for Monday in front of
the Public Safety Building on Dexter Avenue adjacent to the Capitol.
The three plaintiffs who sued the chief justice, including Montgomery lawyer
Stephen Glassroth, claimed that the monument violated the establishment clause
of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits state sponsorship of religion.
Moore's supporters raised funds for the court fight. But the appeal could shift
the financial burden to the state for legal bills if Moore loses, both Attorney
General Bill Pryor and Moore spokesman Tom Parker agree.
"Of course, there is an element of risk, but the greater probability is
for a reversal, meaning no attorney's fees, ultimately," Parker told the
Mobile Register for a story Sunday.
As the state's chief judicial officer, Moore has the right to control
litigation involving his office, said Pryor. The attorney general said the case
clearly could result in a fee award against the state. But it's not his place
to tell Moore what he can or can't do, he said.
"We're talking about a risk of (financial) liability that really pertains
to his office," said Pryor.
On Dec. 2, lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a request asking Thompson to award
them about $700,000 for their time and expenses. Seeking payment were lawyers
from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
SPLC lawyer Richard Cohen said "it's pure vanity" for Moore to think
that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case. Cohen said there's no question
that he and other lawyers in the case will be awarded fees, and that the state
will be forced to pay them.
The only real question, he said, is how much.
"When Chief Justice Moore first installed the memorial, he made a big
to-do about using private funds and the state not having to pay his legal
fees," Cohen told The Register.
"Of course, the question now is, will he indemnify or protect the state
from these legal fees?" said Cohen.
During the appeal, fees for Moore's lawyers will continue to be paid from a
special fund established for this case and operated by Moore's Wyoming lawyer,
Parker said.
If Moore does lose, and Thompson finds that the plaintiffs lawyers should be
paid, that money would come from the state, said Parker.
"The chief justice told the public that he was not going to charge the
public for his (legal) representation, and the Ten Commandments Defense Fund is
collecting money to pay his expenses," he said.
But the plaintiffs sued the chief justice in his official capacity,
exclusively, and they're the ones asking the taxpayers to pay the legal bills,
Moore's spokesman said.
William G. Ross, a professor at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law
who specializes in constitutional law and legal fee issues, said there are
countless cases in which legal fees have been awarded under the civil rights
law used in the suit against Moore.
"Legal fees are routinely awarded to prevailing parties in civil rights
cases," Ross said.
He noted, though, that a judge has "considerable discretion in reviewing
the reasonableness of the fees."
Thompson has set a Jan. 31 deadline for the defense to submit briefs opposing
an award for fees and, in the event that fails, objecting to the amount sought
by the plaintiffs' legal team.
Pryor said that his office will continue to defer to Moore's legal team in
objecting to the fees.
"They're the ones who handled the case, and they're the ones who will be
able to evaluate the reasonableness of those (fee) requests," Pryor said.
Parker said that the key in the fee issue remains the outcome of the case:
Should Moore win, the fee issue would go away.
Erik Stanley favors a Moore victory before the U.S. Supreme Court, but the
lawyer for the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel doesn't see it happening. And
because of that, he hopes the case doesn't get that far.
The Liberty Counsel is a civil liberties defense and education organization
that is involved in Ten Commandments cases in courts in five states.
The Montgomery monument, and Moore's actions, are too overtly religious, and as
such, the case could damage the movement to present religious symbols in
government buildings should the U.S. Supreme Court choose to consider it,
Stanley told The Register.
"At Liberty Counsel, we would prefer some other type of litigation on this
issue to be the (Supreme Court) test case," said Stanley. "I don't
believe the courts are willing to accept right now a single copy of the Ten
Commandments in a public building without anything else around it, and so the cases
we take are more geared toward presentations of the Ten Commandments in context
with other historical and governmental documents."
He said the Ten Commandments are a religious document.
"The way the Supreme Court looks at these things is, `Would a reasonable observer,
looking at the public display of the Ten Commandments, perceive that the
government is not endorsing religion?"