## Facts

- A Latin cross was erected in 1934 at Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, federal land managed by the National Park Service, to honor soldiers who died in World War I.
- The original cross deteriorated and was replaced with a white metal cross approximately five to eight feet tall.
- The site served as a war memorial and was also used intermittently for Easter services beginning in the 1930s, and regularly from 1984.
- Frank Buono, a retired Park Service employee and frequent visitor, objected to the cross’s display on federal land, particularly after a request for another religious symbol nearby was denied.
- In 2002, a federal district court found an Establishment Clause violation and entered a permanent injunction barring display of the cross on federal land.
- Congress responded by restricting funding for removal, designating the cross a national memorial, and directing a land exchange transferring the one-acre parcel containing the cross to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
- In later enforcement proceedings, the district court enjoined implementation of the land-transfer statute, reasoning the transfer was an attempt to preserve the cross with continued government responsibility; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Buono had standing to seek enforcement of the 2002 injunction in later proceedings concerning the land-transfer statute.
2. Whether the district court properly enforced (or instead impermissibly expanded) the 2002 injunction by enjoining the congressionally mandated land transfer.
3. Whether enjoining the land transfer was an abuse of discretion given the equitable posture and the Establishment Clause concerns.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- A majority agreed Buono had standing to seek enforcement of the earlier judgment because a prevailing party has a judicially cognizable interest in compliance with the injunction.
- The Court held the district court abused its discretion by enjoining the land-transfer statute without giving sufficient weight to Congress’s chosen remedy and without considering less drastic alternatives.
- The Court did not finally decide whether the land transfer cured any Establishment Clause violation, leaving that evaluation for further proceedings under the correct equitable framework.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff who has obtained an injunction has a judicially cognizable interest in ensuring compliance with that judgment sufficient to support standing in related enforcement proceedings.
- An enforcement order may not effectively rewrite or broaden an earlier injunction beyond its terms; courts must distinguish enforcing an injunction from modifying it based on new legal assessments.
- In equitable review, a district court abuses its discretion when it adopts an overly rigid view of the Establishment Clause and fails to consider Congress’s remedial choices and feasible alternatives.
- Government actions concerning religious symbols must be assessed in context; accommodating historical practices or memorial purposes can differ from governmental endorsement of religion.
- Transfer of property to a private party can be relevant to whether a reasonable observer would attribute a display to the government rather than private speech, depending on the genuineness and implementation of the transfer.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Buono could seek compliance with the prior injunction but that the district court went too far in blocking Congress’s land-transfer remedy; the case was remanded for a proper equitable assessment of whether the transfer and related measures would eliminate the unconstitutional appearance of government endorsement.


Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010)