October Term 2009 · Docket 08-472

Can the government transfer a religious memorial to private land to avoid an Establishment Clause violation?

The dispute centers on whether transferring a cross from public to private land satisfies the Establishment Clause.

Official caption
Salazar v. Buono
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Kagan argued that the transfer divests the government of the property.

    She stated that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit this sensible action.

    She noted that the district court gave Congress two basic options.

    She argued that the private group can remove the memorial if it chooses.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case involves a cross on public land. The government wants to transfer it to a private group. The challengers argue this transfer violates the Constitution.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 7, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants to transfer the cross to a private group to end the legal dispute.

The challengers want the court to block the transfer and remove the cross from public view.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues that transferring the property removes it from government endorsement.

The challengers argue that the transfer does not cure the original constitutional violation.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if the government must approve the memorial to grant it national status.

Justice Scalia asked if the court of appeals prohibited the private group from substituting the memorial.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of government action regarding religious symbols on public land. It determines how the state handles property disputes involving religious expression. The outcome shapes future interactions between government and religious groups.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON