Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Comm. v. City of Santa Monica, No. 13-55011 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2003, the City of Santa Monica enacted an exception to the general prohibition on “unattended displays” of nativity scenes in its parks for the month of December in the City’s Palisades Park. A decade later, after a number of atheists began opposing the nativity scenes, the City repealed the “Winter Display” exception. The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee sued the City, alleging that the repeal ordinance violated the Committee’s right to free speech because it was an unconstitutional heckler’s veto and violated the Establishment Clause by conveying the message that the City disapproved of Christianity. The district court dismissed the Committee’s complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the heckler’s veto doctrine had no application in this case because the repeal was a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation; and (2) the Committee failed to state a claim under the Establishment Clause.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s order dismissing a complaint brought by the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee seeking to continue the decade-old practice of exhibiting nativity scenes during the month of December in Palisades Park, Santa Monica, California. The Committee challenged the constitutionality of the City of Santa Monica’s Ordinance No. 2401, which repealed an exception to the City’s general ban on “unattended displays” in its parks. The repealed exception had permitted certain unattended “Winter Displays” in the City’s Palisades Park every December, using a lottery system to allocate the available space. The panel held that the heckler’s veto doctrine had no application in this case, which involved the City’s generally-applicable repeal of a special exception to its policy of excluding unattended displays from its parks. The panel held that the repeal was a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation. The panel held that the Committee’s Establishment Clause claim was without foundation. The panel determined that the City had several secular rationales for enacting Ordinance 2401—e.g., improving the aesthetics of Palisades Park and alleviating administrative burdens on the City. The NATIVITY SCENES COMM. V. CITY OF SANTA MONICA 3 panel further held that it was not plausible that, considering Ordinance 2401 in context, a “reasonable observer” would conclude that its primary effect was to communicate a message of disfavor toward Christianity.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.