Opposition Brief — McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.

Supreme Court, U.S

FILED

No. 03-1693 AUG - 3 2004

-ERK

3n The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

¢

McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY; JIMMIE GREENE,

as McCreary County Judge Executive: PULASKI

COUNTY, KENTUCKY: DARRELL BESHEARS,

as Pulaski County Judge Executive

Petitioners,

-- Vv.

ACLU OF KENTUCKY, et al.,

Respondents.

>

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Sixth Circuit

¢

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

+

Davip A. FRIEDMAN

Genera! Counsel

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION OF KENTUCKY

425 W. Muhammad Ali Blvd.

Louisville, KY 40202

(502) 581-1181

Counsel of Record

for Respondents

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 s

’

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming a supple-

mental preliminary injunction prohibiting Ten Com-

mandments displays in two Kentucky counties where —

after first posting stand-alone Ten Commandments dis-

plays, then altering those displays during litigation to

include excerpts of text focusing on religion — the counties

posted a third display surrounding the Ten Command-

ments with patriotic and political documents from Ameri-

can, Colonial and British history?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...........ccccccccceeseesseeseeees 1

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT..............00005 6

PN 1 |.) PEDO 7

I. The Sixth Circuit Correctly Applied This

Court’s Cases To Affirm That Petitioners’

Primary Purpose Likely Was To Endorse Re-

BRIER. .....ccccccceccocneccnssnesseesiinnienneneininnnnnannnnnnn 7

II. There is No Significant Conflict In The

Federal Appeals Courts. ................:cssceseeeeeeeees 10

III. This Case’s Procedural Posture Warrants

Damadal OF BRaUEGU. ...coccccsccscsessusiensensenneieeenl 13

8 Ot EE 13

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Abington Township Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S.

cca aiarinacnsnnsnntsiiconsnnnnnnsccecoese 7

Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2002), cert.

I A, CED CIE Da ccncoscnsescecesssosscesescoseseccoccccose 11

_ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County, 96 F.Supp.2d

i asiniictcensesnnetaconctene 1, 2, 5, 10

ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County, 354 F.3d

arate is cecentinittacvesncsrcncececceses 3

Anderson v. Salt Lake City, 475 F.2d 29 (10th Cir.

lia ancl cee cgrtchnmnsiohantnneaseneeeccesscese 12

Books v. City of Elkhart, Ind., 235 F.3d 292 (7th

Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1058 (2002)...................0 12

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)..............cccceeeee 7

Freethought Society v. Chester Cty., 334 F.3d 247

i ceteracccemninatesennsnsoncqooese 12

Indiana Civil Liberties Union v. O’Bannon, 259

F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

EEE SE 11, 12

King v. Richmond Cty., 331 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2003)....... 12

Lynch v. Donnelly, 445 U.S. 668 (1984)..........ccccccceeeeeees 5, 7

Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290

asada ieieneticinnennannntiicebiacemnsaecnncese 5, 8, 9, 10

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)... eee passim

Summum v. Callaghan, 130 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 1997) ....... 12

Van Orden v. Perry, 351 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2003)............. 12

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)... eee 7,8

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 158.178(2) (1980) .......

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Exodus 20:3-17 (King James Version)

— Continued

1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In 1999, McCreary County erected in its county

courthouse a Ten Commandments display consisting only

of a “framed copy of one version of the Ten Command-

ments ... [which] was not part of any larger educational,

historical, or retrospective exhibit.” [Petitioner Appendix

(Pet. App.) 6a.) It did so pursuant to a fiscal court (county

legislature) order, signed by petitioner Jimmie Green, id.,

that “the display be posted in a very high traffic area of

the courthouse.” ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County,

96 F.Supp.2d 679, 684 (E.D. Ky. 2000) (McCreary County

D).

Pulaski County erected a similar display in its county

courthouse. [Pet. App. 6a.] Petitioner Darrell BeShears

(the County Judge Executive, or chief executive branch

officer) candidly expressed his religious purpose in erect-

ing the display: “I’ve always felt like God comes first,

country second and family third.” [Joint Appendix on

appeal to Sixth Circuit (J.A.) at 86-89.]

The respondents filed suit, contending that the Ten

Commandments displays violated the First Amendment’s

establishment clause. [Pet. App. 3a.] Soon thereafter, the

petitioners modified their Ten Commandments displays to

include several other documents; the petitioners conceded

that they did so “in an attempt to bring the display(s]

within the parameters of the First Amendment and to

insulate themselves from suit.” [Pet. App. 7a (quoting

McCreary County I, 96 FSupp.2d at 684).] Instead of

stand-alone copies of the Ten Commandments, the peti-

tioners’ modified displays included all or part of eight

2

documents.’ [Pet. App. 7a] In their second displays, the

petitioners “excerpted a small portion of [some documents]

to include only that document’s reference to God or the

Bible ... ” [Pet. App. 8a (quoting McCreary County I, 96

F.Supp.2d at 684, 696)(brackets added).] Upon motion, the

district court preliminarily enjoined the continuation of

these modified Ten Commandments displays. [Pet. App.

8a.]’

Several months later, the petitioners erected their

third Ten Commandments displays. [Pet. App. 8a.]. This

time, instead of surrounding the Ten Commandments with

excerpted text focusing on God or the Bible, the petitioners

surrounded the Ten Commandments with American (and

earlier Colonial and British) political and patriotic texts,

song lyrics and a picture. [See Pet. App. 8a-10a (detailing

contents of displays).] The courthouse displays contained a

Biblical reference, identifying the Ten Commandments as

deriving from the “King James Version” of “Exodus 20:3-

17.” (Pet. App. 10a, n.5.] Upon further motion, the district

court supplemented its preliminarily injunction to enjoin

the petitioners’ third version of their Ten Commandments

displays. [Pet. App. 12a-13a.]

' The eight documents were an excerpt from the Declaration of

Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution of Kentucky, the

national motto of “In God We Trust,” a page from the Congressional

Record declaring 1983 the Year of the Bible, a proclamation by Presi-

dent Lincoln declaring April 30, 1863 a Nasional Day of Prayer and

Humiliation, an excerpt from President Lincoln’s “Reply to Loyal

Colored People of Baltimore upon Presentation of a Bible” reading, a

proclamation by President Reagan marking 1983 as the year of the

Bible, and the Mayflower Compact. McCreary County I, 96 F.Supp.2d at

* The governments initially appealed, but then abandoned their

appeals, from the preliminary injunctions. [See Pet. App. 4a.]

3

A divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed, agreeing that

— on this record — the district court did not abuse its

discretion in finding that the petitioners’ primary purpose

in posting their Ten Commandments displays was to

endorse religion. ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County,

354 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2003).*

In addressing whether the predominant purpose for

petitioners’ displays was religious, the Sixth Circuit read

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980), to require that “a

purported historical display must present the Ten Com-

mandments objectively and integrate them with a secular

message.” [Pet. App. 21a-22a.] In the courthouse context,

“(t]he government achieves this goal by ensuring that the

symbols, pictures and/or words in the display share a

common secular theme or subject matter.” [Pet. App. 22a.]

And the Sixth Circuit deemed it necessary to examine

three factors “when assessing whether the Ten Com-

mandments have been presented objectively and inte-

grated with a secular message: the content of the displays,

the physical setting in which the Ten Commandments are

displayed and any changes that Defendants have made to

the displays since their inception.” [/d.]

The Sixth Circuit found that all three factors — content,

context and evolution of the displays — showed a predomi-

nantly religious purpose. As for content: The displays’ one-

page prefatory document “asserts a connection between the

Ten Commandments and ‘the formation of our country’ and

‘our legal tradition.’” [Pet. App. 27a-28a.] But the Court

* One judge concluded (as had the district court) that the displays

also had the impermissible effect of endorsing religion; one disagreed;

the third declined to reach the issue.

4

deemed this thesis “not facially apparent” and found that

“the preface offers no explanation” to show how “the

Declaration [of Independence] is in any way connected

with the Ten Commandments.” [Pet. App. 18a.] The Court

found that the “solitary similarity” between the Ten

Commandments and the Declaration of Independence —

that both recognize the existence of a deity — “hardly

demonstrates how the Ten Commandments in particular

influenced the writing of the Declaration and, hence, the

foundation of our country and legal tradition.” [Jd. (em-

phasis in original).] The petitioners thus failed to “buttress

the historical claim that the prefatory document makes

about the Ten Commandments’ foundational role in the

drafting of the Declaration of Independence,” [Pet. App.

29a], and did not cite “to a single historical source in

support of the proposition that the Ten Commandments

inspired the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.”

[Pet. App. 32a.] The Court therefore found that the display

was not an “objective presentation of the Ten Command-

ments,” [id.], but one that went “out of its way to stress

the proposition that the Ten Commandments formed the

foundation of the Declaration of Independence while

utterly ignoring (and implicitly denying) all other influ-

ences.” [Jd.]

The Court therefore deemed the content of the peti-

tioners’ displays to evidence a religious purpose: “When

distilled to their essence, the courthouse displays demon-

strate that [petitioners] intend to convey the bald asser-

tion that the Ten Commandments formed the foundation

of American legal tradition.” [Pet. App. 32a.] Because the

display asserted “that the Ten Commandments provide the

moral background of the Declaration of Independence and

f

5

the foundation of our legal tradition” and thus “empha-

siz(ed] a single religious influence, with no mention of any

other religious or secular influences,” the Sixth Circuit

concluded that the district court did not abuse its discre-

tion in finding that petitioners’ primary “purposes were

religious.” [Pet. App. 33a (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted) (emphasis added in McCreary County I).]

As for context: The Sixth Circuit recognized that Stone

and Lynch v. Donnelly, 445 U.S. 668 (1984), governed its

inquiry. Applying those cases, the Court concluded that,

even though the displays “did not provide undue physical

emphasis to the Ten Commandments,” the “Command-

ments are an active symbol of religion . . . As such, [peti-

tioners] had to exercise special care to present the Ten

Commandments objectively and as an integral part of a

non-religious message,” but failed to do so. [Pet. App. 35a-

36a.)

As for evolution of the display: The Sixth Circuit

recognized that Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S.

290 (2000), required it to consider petitioners’ conduct

throughout this dispute in determining their primary

purposes. [Pet. App. 36a.] Petitioners’ first displays con-

tained only the Ten Commandments. Their second dis-

plays “accentuated [the petitioners’ religious purpose ...

by posting the Commandments along with specific refer-

ences to Christianity and texts that . .. were chosen solely

for their religious references.” [Pet. App. 41a (internal

quotation marks omitted).] Their third displays — at issue

here — contained full text from secular political and patri-

otic documents. [See Pet. App. 8a-10a (describing content

of displays).] Applying Santa Fe, the Sixth Circuit held

that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that

~~

6

the evolution also “indicated that the primary purpose was

religious.” [Pet. App. 42a.]

The Sixth Circuit later denied rehearing en banc, with

two judges concurring and two dissenting. [Pet. App. 163a-

176a.]

+

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT

Review is inappropriate for three reasons. First, the

Sixth Circuit correctly applied settled establishment

clause law in finding that the district court did not abuse

its discretion when it concluded that — on this record, with

this litigation history — the petitioners’ primary purpose in

repeatedly posting the Ten Commandments was to en-

dorse religion. The petitioners merely seek to correct what

they perceive to be an incorrect application of well-settled

principles of law.

Second, there is no conflict among the circuits. The

Sixth Circuit’s opinion applies the same governing princi-

ples as has every federal court of appeals considering Ten

Commandments displays. Where the outcomes differ, they

do so because of a case’s specific facts or its unique litiga-

tion history.

Third, this case’s procedural posture warrants denial

of review. The district court’s opinion was a preliminary

injunction, where it deemed respondents likely to prevail.

The Sixth Circuit’s review thus was deferential, affirming

because the district court did not abuse its discretion.

These twin qualifiers — discretion to conclude that a party

is likely to prevail — make this case unworthy of review.

+

7

ARGUMENT

I. The Sixth Circuit Correctly Applied This

Court’s Cases To Affirm That Petitioners’ Pri-

mary Purpose Likely Was To Endorse Religion.

The Sixth Circuit properly recognized the establish-

ment clause principles by which petitioners’ displays must

be gauged [Pet. App. 15a-16a], and correctly affirmed that

petitioners’ primary purposes were not secular. In doing

so, the appeals court properly applied this Court’s lone Ten

Commandments case and its general establishment clause

jurisprudence.

Where “a governmental intention to promote religion

is clear,” Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 585 (1987),

this Court has not hesitated to hold the challenged con-

duct unconstitutional. Thus, the Court has invalidated

Louisiana’s creationism statute, Aguillard; struck down a

Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Command-

ments in public schools, Stone; struck down Alabama’s

moment of silence statute, Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38

(1985); and held unconstitutional the mandated daily

reading of Bible verses and the Lord’s Prayer in public

schools. Abington Township Sch. Dist. v. Schempp, 374

U.S. 203 (1963). Significantly, in each of those cases, this

Court held that the challenged conduct was motivated by a

religious purpose, and disregarded the government’s

assertion of a sincere nonreligious purpose.

Nor is the requirement of a secular purpose “satisfied

... by the mere existence of some secular purpose, how-

ever dominated by religious purposes.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at

691 (Justice O’Connor, concurring). While a government’s

professed secular purpose for an arguably religious policy

is entitled to “some deference,” it is “the duty of the courts

8

to ‘distinguis[h] a sham secular purpose from a sincere

one.’” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 530 U.S. 290, 308 (2000)

(quoting Wallace, 472 U.S. at 75) (brackets supplied in

Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist.).

There are two distinct reasons for affirming the

appeals court’s conclusion that these displays lack a valid

secular purpose. First, this Court has rejected a similar

articulated purpose as not secular. Second, this litigation’s

history reveals that petitioners’ articulated secular pur-

pose is a sham.

The petitioners assert that they seek merely to show

the Ten Commandments’ influence on American law and

government. But the appeals court correctly held that — by

equating this one religious document with the Magna

Carta, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence; by

claiming that the Ten Commandments “provide the moral

background of the Declaration of Independence and the

foundation of our legal tradition,” [Pet. App. 180a]; by

“emphas[izing] a single religious influence, with no men-

tion of any other religious or secular influences” [Pet. App.

34a] — petitioners had displayed a non-secular purpose

similar to one this Court rejected more than twenty years

ago.

In Stone, 449 U.S. 39, this Court summarily struck

down a Kentucky statute requiring schools to post copies

of the Ten Commandments. Kentucky’s statute required

that each Ten Commandments display include the follow-

ing disclaimer: “The secular application of the Ten Com-

mandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the

fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the

Common Law of the United States.” Ky. Rev. Stat.

§ 158.178(2) (1980), quoted in Stone, 449 U.S. at 41. This

hess ieensienmmennsionndeeemmmenenersarmninnmmmenmeammenionniammneen een eee

9

Court was unpersuaded: “The Ten Commandments are

undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian

faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular

purpose can blind us to that fact.” Stone, 449 U.S. at 41

(footnote omitted).

The articulated “secular purpose” here is but a varia-

tion on that theme. Because the petitioners’ purpose —

declaring that the Ten Commandments “provide the moral

background of the Declaration of Independence and the

foundation of our legal tradition” — is conceptually identi-

cal to Ky. Rev. Stat. § 158.178(2)’s purpose — showing the

Ten Commandments’ adoption as the “fundamental legal

code of Western Civilization and the Common Law,” -

Stone establishes that the asserted secular purpose “can-

not blind” this Court to the obvious sacred nature of the

displays. And where, as here, the displays “utterly fail to

integrate the Ten Commandments with a secular subject

matter” [Pet. App. 33a], the appeals court correctly found

no reason to distinguish petitioners’ purpose from Ken-

tucky’s purpose in Stone.

Second, courts “not only can, but must, include an

examination of the circumstances surrounding [the gov-

ernmental] enactment.” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 530

U.S. at 308. Here, those circumstances reveal the innately

sectarian backdrop to these displays. In 1999, local gov-

ernments throughout Kentucky posted the Ten Com-

mandments in courthouses, schools and other public

buildings. The local governments invited legal challenges

and these two received them amid wide publicity. They

initially posted only the Ten Commandments and peti-

tioner Greene candidly admitted his religious reasons for

doing so. After being sued, petitioners cloaked their

displays in textual excerpts celebrating religion and

10

announced their purpose of “demonstrat[{ing] America’s

Christian heritage.” McCreary County I, 96 F.Supp.2d at

674. And after the district court enjoined their second Ten

Commandments displays, petitioners posted their third,

purporting merely to display “historical documents.” The

district court was well within its discretion, as the appeals

court concluded, in finding it no coincidence that the Ten

Commandments was among the “historical documents”

that petitioners opted to display. The petitioners “never-

theles[s] as[k the courts] to pretend that [they] do not

recognize what every [one else] underst[ood] clearly — that

this [display was] about prayer.” Santa Fe Indep. Sch.

Dist., 530 U.S. at 319.*

For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit properly applied

this Court’s precedents in affirming the district court’s

conclusion: that respondents are likely to prevail on their

claim that petitioners lacked a valid secular purpose for

posting their displays.

II. There Is No Significant Conflict In The Federal

Appeals Courts.

This Court has considered the constitutionality of

governmental Ten Commandments displays only once. In

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), the Court summarily

struck down a Kentucky statute requiring each public

school to post the Ten Commandments on classroom walls.

* Petitioners complain that the appeals court deemed their current

secular purpose forever doomed by their earlier religious purpose. [See

Petition at 25-30.) But the court did no such thing; rather, it (like the

district court) took the earlier articulated purpose into account in

assessing whether the current — supposedly secular — purpose is a

sham. And Santa Fe requires courts to do so.

11

Although each display was to include a disclaimer that

“(t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is

clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of

Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United

States,” id. at 41, the Court held the statute unconstitu-

tional because:

The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten

Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly

religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are

undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and

Christian faiths. The Commandments do not con-

fine themselves to arguably secular matters ...

Rather, the first part of the Commandments con-

cerns the religious duties of believers: worship-

ping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not

using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the

Sabbath Day.

Id., 449 U.S. at 41-42 (footnote and citations omitted); see

id., 449 U.S. at 42 (referring to the Ten Commandments as

a “religious text[]”).

The courts of appeals have consistently applied Stone

to strike down many displays of the Ten Commandments

at the seat of government. Here, the Sixth Circuit deemed

petitioners’ articulated “secular purpose” but a variation

on the Stone theme. In Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471 (6th

Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 999 (2003), the Sixth

Circuit applied Stone to bar the state from erecting a Ten

Commandments monument at the central focal point of

the state capitol grounds. In Indiana Civil Liberties

Union v. O’Bannon, 259 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2001), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 1162 (2002), the Seventh Circuit applied

Stone to bar the state from maintaining a Ten Com-

mandments monument at the Indiana Statehouse. See

12

id., 259 F.3d at 770-71. And in Books v. City of Elkhart,

Ind., 235 F.3d 292 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1058

(2002), the Seventh Circuit applied Stone to enjoin a city’s

similar Ten Commandments display. Jd., 235 F.3d at 302.

The courts of appeals cases since Stone do not conflict

with the Sixth and Seventh Circuits’ application of that

decision.’ Those circuit court cases permitting Ten Com-

mandments displays have involved truly secular purposes

— that is, something other than a thinly-veiled effort to

proclaim the triumphal influence of the Ten Command-

ments on American law. See, e.g., Freethought Society uv.

Chester Cty., 334 F.3d 247, 262 (3d Cir. 2003) (decision not

to remove eighty year old plaque had secular purpose of

preserving county’s history, where county officials had not

“celebrate[d] or highlighte[d]” plaque’s religious content);

Van Orden v. Perry, 351 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2003) (valid

secular purpose, in accepting Ten Commandments monu-

ment forty years earlier, of recognizing and commending

private organization’s efforts to reduce juvenile delin-

quency); King v. Richmond Cty., 331 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.

2003) (where no evidence of original purpose exists for use

of pictograph of Ten Commandments in county seal,

articulation of secular purpose of symbolizing rule of law

valid).

* Seven years before Stone, the Tenth Circuit held that the Ten

Commandments are not primarily religious in nature. See Anderson v.

Salt Lake City, 475 #.2d 29, 34 (10th Cir. 1973). That court has since

questioned Anderson’s continued vitality. See Summum v. Callaghan,

130 F.3d 906, 910 n.2 (10th Cir. 1997) (“Since Anderson was decided,

however, more recent cases, including a Supreme Court case, cast doubt

on the validity of our conclusion that the Ten Commandments monolith

is primarily secular in nature”); id., 130 F.3d at 912 n.8 (“our decision in

Anderson has been called into question by the Supreme Court in Stone”)

(citations omitted).

13

This case clearly differs from those cited above. All of

the above cases involved decades-old displays; petitioners’

displays are new. All of the above cases involved articu-

lated secular purposes other than efforts to link the Ten

Commandments with American law and government. And

none of the above cases had this case’s litigation history of

repeated unsuccessful efforts to post the Ten Command-

ments. These stark differences reveal no conflict in the

circuits about application of Stone to modern Ten Com-

mandments displays.

Ill. This Case’s Procedural Posture Warrants

Denial Of Review.

Even if the Court were inclined to review application

of the Establishment Clause to a Ten Commandments

display, this case is not the proper vehicle for review. The

case involves a preliminary injunction. As such, the

district court held only that respondents were likely to

prevail on the merits. And the appeals court affirmed

under a deferential standard, holding that the district

court had not abused its discretion in granting its supple-

mental preliminary injunction. These twin qualifiers —

discretion and likelihood of prevailing on the merits — limit

the reach of the decision below and make the case unwor-

thy of this Court’s review.

+

CONCLUSION

Certiorari is not warranted. The Court of Appeals’

analysis conformed to the context-based inquiry demanded

by this Court. There is no meaningful conflict with deci-

sions of another circuit court. And the case’s procedural

14

posture argues against review. Because there are no

grounds for granting plenary review, this Court should

deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID A. FRIEDMAN

General Counsel

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION OF KENTUCKY

425 W. Muhammad Ali Blvd.

Louisville, KY 40202

(502) 581-1181

Counsel of Record for Respondents