Judge Sides With ACLU on Jesus Picture, But Allows it to Continue Being Displayed in Louisiana Courthouse

Teresa Neumann : Apr 25, 2008
Penny Starr - CNS News

ACLU claims the plaintiff and others "have suffered, or shall suffer damages, including mental anguish and emotional distress" from viewing the picture of Jesus. Law professor says, "This is the first case I know of that upholds a display of a picture of Jesus. It is significant."

(Slidell, Louisiana) —Although U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle sided with the American Civil Liberties Union, ruling that a painting of Jesus that hangs in the courthouse in Slidell, LA. is unconstitutional, the case is unique because the picture is still on display, (albeit joined now by more than a dozen other images of historic lawmaking figures). There are no plans to remove the image. According to a CNS report, before last year’s first hearing, the court added paintings of other figures from history, found (with the exception of Jesus) in the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo: AP)

"This is the first case I know of that upholds a display of a picture of Jesus," Douglas Laycock, professor of constitutional law at the University of Michigan Law School. "It is significant."

The report noted that the ruling is significant because of the $1 in damages awarded to the ACLU. "The judge wasn't persuaded by that 'trauma' if he only awarded a dollar," said Laycock.

Incredibly, the ACLU said plaintiff "John Doe" and others, "have suffered, or shall suffer damages, including mental anguish and emotional distress" from viewing the image.

Michael Johnson, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), was quoted as saying that although the ruling was disappointing in one aspect, it isn't seen as a win for the ACLU. "The ACLU is proclaiming a win," he said, "but they really didn't accomplish anything. Their objective was to get the Jesus picture taken down, and it's still prominently displayed."