Bible Case News and Analysis

So the apparent timeline is this: Over a year ago, Kay Staley files this action. At the time, the Star of Hope Mission was aware of the action, and even offered evidence at trial. They did not, however, prosecute that petition. Just after Harris County lost the case, the SOH began to consider the implications (See my previous post here) they were contacted by some interest groups and filed a new motion to intervene.

Yesterday, Judge Lake issued a new order denying the motion to intervene which, based on the legal principals it uses, is not likely to be overturned. That ruling held in part:

Simply put, Star of Hope’s argument that an order requiring the removal of its bible from the Mosher Monument was “never anticipated” is not credible. This assertion is only believable to the extend [sic] that Star of Hope is stating that it “never anticipated” that the County might lose. But a failure of imagination is not germane to the law governing intervention. If Star of Hope was genuinely concerned about protecting its rights in this litigation, it could have and should have filed a motion for leave to intervene long ago.

Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2004.

The essence of the order is that because the SOH is simply arguing that they didn’t know they were going to lose, they have no right to intervene now that they have.

Judge Lake continues, however, to address a couple of other issues, which could potentially be interesting on appeal. First, in response to the SOH argument that intervention is necessary to protect the free speech and free exercise rights of SOH, Judge Lake responds that the County had indeed raised those issues during litigation, and points out that legally to intervene, SOH must prove that the County has oppositional or at least different interests than their own.

In response to the SOH argument that the ruling would result in to loss (“conversion”) of SOH property (the Bible), Judge lake responds that SOH “can simply send a representative over to the Courthouse grounds with a key, unlock the glass case, and remove its Bible, or a Star of Hope representative can stand by while the County removes the Bible and then take immediate possession of it.” More interesting though is this statement which seems to preclude some appellate arguments altogether: “Because the Bible is on County property, the County has represented to the court that, although it does not own the Bible, it has the authority to remove it or even the entire Mosher Monument at any time.”

My Analysis and Opinion

I think that this judgment will likely stand. Given the number of protests, media coverage, and the fact that members of SOH were called as witnesses during trial…coupled with the fact that SOH only petitioned for intervention when they found out their side had lost, the judges decision that the motion is untimely will probably be upheld. Furthermore, I think as a matter of pure justice, it seems clear that the County is out to protect the rights of the religious minority here. Stafford has made public statements to the effect that he thinks this case is about the County protecting the rights of religious people to express that religion. He certainly could have taken a different interpretation and suggested that this case is about protecting the rights of non-religious people from state endorsement of religion, in which case the intervention would make more sense.

To summarize, other than being wrong in my prediction (and I hate being wrong), I think this is a good result and that no one will be substantially impaired.