EVERETT — The city’s legal bills in the Ten Commandments case are mounting.
Everett already has paid $70,000 to a Seattle law firm to defend itself against a lawsuit alleging that a Ten Commandments monument on city property is unconstitutional.
Those bills could reach $100,000 by the time U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnick issues a decision, City Attorney Jim Iles said.
That doesn’t include city staff time, and the exact number of hours has yet to be been calculated.
Lasnick is scheduled to first hear arguments in the case Oct. 4 in Seattle, although lawyers on both sides say a decision could come before then.
Mayor Ray Stephanson has been telling neighborhood groups that one reason the city needs to continue cutting programs and services is because of unanticipated legal expenses, including the Ten Commandments case.
In March, Stephanson cut $3.5 million from the 2004 budget and laid off 17 permanent and seven seasonal employees. He said the city would need to cut another $3.7 million from the 2005 budget.
The mayor said his decision to continue spending money on the commandments case was made in consultation with the City Council.
The lead attorney for the group that is representing Jesse Card, the 20-year-old Everett man who filed the lawsuit against the city, said Everett is wasting its money.
"The monument is plainly unconstitutional," said Ayesha Khan, legal director of Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "They don’t have a legal leg to stand on."
The lawsuit alleges that by displaying the Ten Commandments monument outside City Council chambers, Everett is violating the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of state endorsement of religion.
Khan accused city officials of using the Ten Commandments issue for political gain.
"Defending this lawsuit is not being driven by the strength of the city’s legal position, but by the perception of political reality," she said. "That’s a bad way of making decisions when the taxpayers’ money is on the line."
Stephanson said the city’s legal arguments are based on solid legal principles. "Obviously, we think our position is defensible or we wouldn’t be where we are," he said.
"For someone to say it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money to defend this is bogus," City Council President Arlan Hatloe said. "That would be like saying that if anyone wants to throw a lawsuit against us, we should just roll over and take it.
"We have a right to defend a historical marker that’s been there for years and was a gift to the city."
The city maintains that the granite monument, which the Everett Eagles donated to the city in 1959, is a historic landmark that promotes universal values and legal principles, not a particular religion.
Courts across the country have differed on whether Ten Commandments displays in front of government buildings violate the Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on the matter.
Before Stephanson was elected mayor in November, he said of the controversy: "I believe a lengthy and expensive legal battle should be avoided, and a mutually agreeable compromise should be reached to protect the rights and respect the beliefs of all citizens."
The mayor said he is still open to a settlement. But he said "at this point," any settlement would have to include leaving the monument on city property.
Khan said Americans United would not agree to any settlement in which the slab remains on city-owned land.
If either side appeals Lasnick’s decision, the case would go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Iles estimated that would cost another $50,000.
Khan said Americans United’s legal expenses would probably be roughly equivalent to Everett’s. But if the city loses, it would likely be liable for American United’s legal expenses, meaning that Everett could end up shelling out up to $300,000 on the case.
Lawyers for the city and Americans United said they have told Lasnick they believe a trial is unnecessary and the case should be decided through summary judgment. That occurs when attorneys agree on the basic facts of a case.
"We know when the monument was placed there, and we know what the monument says," said Seattle attorney Marc Slonim, who represents Americans United.
"There might be some different views on what the effect of the city’s display of the monument has been, and there may be different views on what the city’s motives for displaying the monument are. But there is no dispute as to what the facts are."
If Lasnick decides the case through summary judgment, he would likely issue an opinion before the Oct. 4 trial date, said Stephen Smith, a partner in Preston Gates Ellis LLP, the law firm the city is paying to represent it in the case.
Reporter David Olson: 425-339-3452 or dolson@heraldnet.com
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
