the cross. Citing an administrative regulation, the NPS refused Hoopg’ request to erect another religious display in the same area of the Preserve as the cross. In its letter denying the request, the NPS advised Hoops that it intended to remove the cross. However, recent federal legislation banning the NPS from spending money to remove the cross precludes it from doing so. Moreover, the NPS, pursuant to federal law, plans to install a memorial plaque at the base of the cross. The first governmental action — refusing the installation of another religious symbol, while permitting the presence of the cross — constitutes governmental support for the cross; the second — spending money and installing a plaque at the site of the cross, while prohibiting the NPS from using approp 7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). While the court concludes from the
holding that the presence of a cross on the city insignia did not violate the establishment clause holding that plaintiffs have standing to assert establishment clause violation because in part a cross led plaintiffs to alter their behavior holding that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the presence of a cross in a city park even though the cross was neither erected nor financially maintained by the government holding that because the president of the united states appointed only eight out of the fifty members who sat on the red cross board of governors the plaintiff failed to satisfy the third prong of the lebron test therefore the red cross was not a government actor recognizing that plaintiffs standing to challenge public display of a cross was accepted in prior lowercourt decision