In the Utah Highway patrol case:

 Link  Our response to rehearing petition by the state
"...Utah then simply repeats arguments previously made... All those arguments were appropriately considered by the hearing panel.

"A petition for rehearing which “discloses no issues the panel has overlooked or misconstrued in its order and judgment” and “is essentially a reiteration of arguments already advanced in the briefs . . . is neither helpful nor persuasive.

    "Utah points to nowhere the panel decision misapprehended the facts nor the law. Utah simply reargues its case in its Petition. This is an abuse of the privilege of making such a petition.

    "The hearing panel properly considered the facts and issues before the Court and applied the proper legal analysis. The State Defendants seek rehearing, yet present no substantial mistakes of law. Instead, Utah simply presents again the arguments already considered by the hearing panel. This is not an appropriate use of a petition for rehearing and Utah’s petition should therefore be denied."

"For the foregoing reasons, Utah’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc
should be denied"

 Link  Our response to the rehearing petition by UHPA
"Whether the government violates the Establishment Clause depends in large part on the display's particular physical setting.

     "The large Roman cross is the UHPA memorial. In comparison, the written words and the UHP logo are secondary to the cross and its message.

     "The UHPA concedes that monumental size crosses standing alone on government property would violate the Establishment Clause.

     "UHPA acknowledges that the Roman crosses are of religious origins and are a symbol of faith.

     "For UHPA the memorial crosses are religious symbols. UHPA would allow the family of the deceased UHP trooper to chose religious symbols other than the cross as the roadside memorial. “Because [the UHPA] exist[s] to serve family members of highway patrolmen, the UHPA would provide another memorial symbol if requested by the family.

     "The religious preference of the deceased trooper’s family determines the UHPA memorial to be erected.

     "Both the UHPA and the State of Utah argue that the memorial crosses should not be viewed as government speech despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum... which held that privately financed and donated monuments that government accepts and displays on government land will almost always constitute government speech.

     "The State Defendants seek rehearing, yet present no substantial mistakes of law.

     "The panel analyzed the relevant factors, including Defendants’ purpose for the memorials, and correctly concluded that based on the totality of relevant factors, the UHPA memorials convey an impermissible message of government endorsement of Christianity to the reasonable observer.

   "For the foregoing reasons, Utah’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc should be denied."

American Atheists sue to stop World Trade Center Cross