This Day in Legal History: Alabama Ten commandments Monument
On August 28, 2003, the Supreme Court of Alabama removed a 5,280-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse in Montgomery. The monument had been installed two years earlier by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who argued it reflected the moral foundation of U.S. law. However, its religious nature sparked immediate controversy and litigation. In Glassroth v. Moore, three attorneys sued in federal court, asserting that the display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court ruled in their favor, ordering the monument’s removal.
Moore refused to comply with the court's order, prompting further legal and administrative actions. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision, finding the monument's placement unconstitutional. When Moore continued to defy the federal ruling, the Judicial Inquiry Commission of Alabama brought ethics charges against him. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary subsequently removed Moore from office for failing to uphold the rule of law.
The case underscored the constitutional limits on religious expression by public officials and reinforced federal supremacy in matters of constitutional interpretation. It also intensified national debates over the role of religion in public life and the meaning of the Establishment Clause. Moore would later regain the position of Chief Justice in 2013, only to be suspended again for defying federal law, this time over same-sex marriage.
You will, of course, also remember that Roy Moore–in addition to being a huge fan of the Ten Commandments–is plausibly accused of misconduct involving multiple women, including allegations of sexual assault by three women—two of whom were minors at the time. Leigh Corfman alleged Moore assaulted her when she was 14 and he was 32, and Beverly Young Nelson accused Moore of assaulting her when she was 16. Six additional women have described Moore as behaving inappropriately when they were between 14 and 22 years old. Moore has denied all allegations of misconduct, though he admitted to knowing some of the women and, at times, dating teenagers while in his 30s. Dating teenagers while in his 30s. No criminal charges were filed, so of course all of these are merely allegations, but the accusations were widely reported during his 2017 Senate campaign, which he lost in a historic upset in deeply Republican Alabama.
As President Trump threatens to deploy National Guard troops and ICE agents to Chicago, city and state leaders are scrambling to prepare. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson are working closely to coordinate a response, despite acknowledging that their legal options are limited. The move would follow similar deployments in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., both cities led by Black Democratic mayors. State Attorney General Kwame Raoul is crafting a legal strategy, and immigrant advocacy groups are ramping up legal training in anticipation of increased enforcement. Community leaders worry that a federal presence could disrupt efforts to build trust in high-crime neighborhoods and further strain relationships between residents and law enforcement.
Trump claims the intervention is necessary to combat crime, but critics point out that shootings and homicides in Chicago have actually declined significantly this year. Despite the progress, public perceptions of danger persist, with many residents still feeling unsafe at night. Some, including Republicans and a few city residents, support Trump’s plan, citing frustration with issues like homelessness and crime. Others view it as a political stunt, especially in light of recent federal cuts to violence prevention programs.
Trump has also focused on Chicago’s status as a sanctuary city, which has drawn national attention amid the city’s efforts to house tens of thousands of migrants. The fear of federal enforcement has spread beyond undocumented immigrants to Latino citizens and residents. Legal experts suggest any unilateral deployment of the National Guard could violate the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act. Local protest groups are preparing for nonviolent resistance, framing the potential deployment as authoritarian overreach aimed at intimidation.
In Chicago, locals prepare for Trump's possible deployment of National Guard | Reuters
A federal grand jury has declined to indict Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department staffer arrested for allegedly throwing a sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent during President Trump’s law enforcement crackdown in Washington, D.C. Prosecutors had pursued felony assault charges, citing video evidence and statements that Dunn called the agents "fascists" and yelled, “I don’t want you in my city!” before hurling the sandwich. The rejection is notable given the typically low threshold required for grand jury indictments and the prosecutorial control over such proceedings.
The case has become symbolic of broader tensions surrounding the Trump administration’s deployment of federal agents and National Guard troops to address what it calls a crime surge in the capital—claims contradicted by police data showing a decline in violence. The grand jury's decision reflects growing prosecutorial challenges in securing high-level charges amid political pressure to appear tough on crime.
Dunn, who has not entered a plea, was featured in a White House video showing his arrest, part of a broader narrative emphasizing law-and-order policies. The Justice Department has 30 days from arrest to secure an indictment and may attempt to present the case to another grand jury. A similar recent case against a woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent was also downgraded to a misdemeanor after multiple failed attempts to indict.
The ham sandwich indictment jokes write themselves.
Grand jury declines to indict man arrested for throwing sandwich at US agent, source says | Reuters
A federal judge has extended an order blocking the deportation of Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant at the center of a high-profile immigration case tied to President Trump’s enforcement crackdown. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that Abrego must remain in the U.S. at least through October while she considers his legal challenge against a planned deportation to Uganda—a country where he has no connections. The judge also restricted ICE from moving Abrego more than 200 miles from her courthouse in Maryland, where a final hearing is set for October 6.
Abrego’s case drew national attention in March when he was deported to El Salvador despite a judge’s order forbidding it. U.S. officials had accused him of gang affiliations, which he denies. After being imprisoned in El Salvador, he was brought back to the U.S. in June to face charges of transporting undocumented migrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty. His attorneys argue the prosecution is retaliatory and politically motivated.
Abrego had been living in Maryland with his wife and children, all of whom are U.S. citizens, before his arrest. His legal team plans to seek asylum through separate immigration proceedings and has criticized the Trump administration’s handling of the case as an attempt to erode due process protections in immigration law.
Judge extends block on Trump administration's efforts to deport migrant Abrego | Reuters
Share this post