Bill Snedden

I apologize in advance for the rather long post.

The text is a copy of a letter I emailed to the NC Attorney General's office (with a copy to the NCCLU) earlier today. In it I describe what appears to me to be a violation of the anti-establishment clause taking place by a license tag agency in Greensboro. It may also be taking place elsewhere, but of that I have no direct knowledge.

Any comments/suggestions/feedback are welcomed.

Thanks!

Bill Snedden

The text of my letter follows:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Approximately one and a half years ago, I had occasion to visit the N.C. License tag office located at 2248 Golden Gate Shopping Center in Greensboro. Imagine my surprise at finding there for sale sectarian religious-themed vanity plates for cars. These tags had religious images and messages like "Follow me to church", "Pray every day", and "Jesus saves." Frankly, I was astonished to see such articles in a government office and immediately wrote to the NC DOT to advise them of what I believed was an unconstitutional display and to request their removal.

A representative of the NC DOT was kind enough to answer my email with the information that this particular license tag office was operated by a vendor (Urban South Corporation, I believe), and as a private institution, the vendor was not subject to federal and state restrictions barring religious proselytization and promotion of sectarian viewpoints.

My reply included a number of Supreme Court citations (some of which are reproduced below) that I believed demonstrated that Urban South Corporation is, in this location and capacity, a de facto state agent and as such is bound by both the North Carolina and Federal Constitutions, both of which prohibit proselytization and promotion of sectarian viewpoints.

A further reply from the NC DOT advised me that the matter was being turned over to the Attorney General's office for further action. Subsequently, I received an email from someone in the Attorney General's office (sadly, I no longer have copies) advising me that the matter had been investigated and taken care of. Although I assumed that this was to indicate that the unconstitutional displays had been removed, I neglected to follow-through to determine if in fact they were.

I have recently had occasion to do so, having business to transact in the same general area. Upon entering the establishment (which has undergone extensive renovation in the past year, a very good thing) I immediately perceived that the items in question were still being sold. Apparently either the NC Attorney General's office also failed to follow-up to see if the requisite action had been taken, or no action was taken to begin with.

It would seem to be self-evident from the U.S. Constitution that government and government entities and agents may not encourage or discourage religion in any form. It would also seem to be self-evident that the religious freedom granted to U.S. Citizens by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution is granted also to the citizens of the several states through the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the only questions remaining would seem to me to be whether Urban South is an agent of the State of North Carolina and as such whether Constitutional prohibitions should apply. I believe that there are several U.S. Supreme Court rulings that speak directly to this issue (one as late as last year). Citations for some of these cases, along with some of the relevant findings, are listed at the bottom of this email. I believe that this information supports my contention that Urban South Corporation is, in its capacity as a vendor handling NC DOT business, a de facto agent of the state (if not an actual agent in fact) and therefore subject to the same constitutional limitations as the state itself. Therefore, I am requesting that the Attorney General take action to end this unconstitutional infringement on religious liberty by an agent of the State of North Carolina.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

William M. Snedden
[address omitted]

Cc: NC Civil Liberties Union

Attachments: case citations, below.


382 U.S. 296 - Evans v. Newton, 1966
Headnote [6]: When private individuals or groups are endowed by the state with powers or functions governmental in nature, they become agencies or instrumentalities of the state and subject to its constitutional limitations.

487 U.S. 42 - West v. Atkins, 1988
Headnote: [5] In order to act "under color of state law" within the meaning of 42 USCS 1983, the defendant in a 1983 action must have exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the defendant is clothed with the authority of state law.
Headnote: [6] If a defendant's conduct satisfies the state action requirement of the Federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, then that conduct is also action under color of state law and will support an action under 42 USCS 1983; in such circumstances, the defendant's infringement of the plaintiff's federal rights is fairly attributable to the state.
Headnote: [7] In order to constitute state action for purposes of the Federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, a deprivation of federal rights must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the state or by a person for whom the state is responsible, and the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor; state employment is generally sufficient to render the party a state actor.
Headnote: [8] Defendants in actions under 42 USCS 1983 act under color of state law when they abuse the position given to them by the state; thus, generally, public employees act under color of state law while acting in their official capacity or while exercising their responsibilities pursuant to state law.
Headnote: [9] Defendants are not removed from the purview of 42 USCS 1983, on the theory that they do not act under color of state law, simply because they are professionals acting in accordance with professional discretion and judgment.
Headnote: [10] Custodial and supervisory functions are irrelevant to an assessment whether the particular action challenged was performed under color of state law for purposes of 42 USCS 1983.

500 U.S. 614 - Emerson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 1991
Headnote: [3] Racial discrimination, though invidious in all contexts, violates the Federal Constitution only when the discrimination may be attributed to state action.
Headnote: [4] The Federal Constitution structures the national government and confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other matters, confines the actions of the states.

531 U.S. 288 - Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, et al, 2001
From the opinion by Justice Souter: Our cases have identified a host of facts that can bear on the fairness of such an attribution. We have, for example, held that a challenged activity may be state action when it results from the State's exercise of "coercive power," Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004, when the State provides "significant encouragement, either overt or covert," ibid. or when a private actor operates as a "willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents," Lugar, supra, at 941 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have treated a nominally private entity as a state actor when it is controlled by an "agency of the State," Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U.S. 230, 231, 1 L. Ed. 2d 792, 77 S. Ct. 806 (1957) (per curiam), when it has been delegated a public function by the State, cf., e.g., West v. Atkins, supra, at 56; Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 627-628, 114 L. Ed. 2d 660, 111 S. Ct. 2077 (1991), when it is "entwined with governmental policies" or when government is "entwined in [its] management or control," Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 299, 301, 15 L. Ed. 2d 373, 86 S. Ct. 486 (1966).
Headnote: [6] The character of a legal entity as a state actor, for purposes of the Federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, is determined neither by the entity's expressly private characterization in statutory law nor by the failure of the law to acknowledge the entity's inseparability from recognized government officials or agencies.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Mageth

Go get 'em, Bill.

Megatron

WHOOOOOHOOOOO!!!!

Kick some ass, Bill!

GaryP

Bill--

I think it's great that you are following through on this. I know some would think it trivial, but IMO, if more people would stand up for "trivial" issues there wouldn't be so many major issues.

There's a lawyer intern at Americans United I write to often. If you would like her address, send me a PM and I will send it on to you.

Doug

Could this really be an equal access issue? If enough people demanded "There are no gods" license plates, would the state be compelled to comply? I would think so.

I wish these zealots would stop. It's not enough that they can buy license plate holders with Jesus themes, but they've got to have the state actually involved in printing the messages.

GaryP

That's a good idea. American Atheists has a logo.
Maybe they could be asked to use it and make a few plates with it on them.

ashibaka

Or they could use Adrian's big 'ol O. Nobody would know what it means, but I think that may actually be a good thing in some states.

RufusAtticus

Go, Bill, Go!

Arrowman

Bill, I love it. And they're going to hate you It's so much easier to ignore a rude, abusive complaint than an articulate letter supported by Supreme Court citations, no less. Looking forward to hearing about the fallout.

crazyfingers

Nice!