Five days before we met in Pittsburgh last year, the Kentucky Court of Appeals decided Kentucky Office of Homeland Security v. Christensen. Perhaps some in Kentucky noticed the decision, but it did not receive much widespread attention. Following the September 11th attacks, Kentucky created its own Department of Homeland Security. The implementing legislation included a number of factual findings—one of them being that "[t]he safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God... For as was written long ago: 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." Kentucky also required its Department of Homeland Security to publicize this finding in its training materials and on a commemorative plaque. As you might expect, this drew complaints and eventually a lawsuit. If you are familiar with the Establishment Clause, you will see the constitutional issue: Kentucky's actions here seem to violate the well known constitutional rule that the government cannot endorse or promote religion. But if you know how the Establishment Clause really works, you will not be terribly surprised to learn that the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld this statute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Chicago Kent Law Review is the property of Chicago Kent Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Christopher C. Lund,
The Future of the Establishment Clause in Context: A Response to Ledewitz,
Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol87/iss3/4