No Bible, no courthouse, no case?

The infamous Bible that formerly stood on Houston's Courthouse Square could now be a moot point because the Bible and the monument that held it are both gone and the courthouse is closed, judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said yesterday. It was the first day of a hearing before the 5th Circuit about the Bible, which was removed from a monument honoring Star of Hope benefactor William Mosher after a federal judge and a panel of the circuit court judges said it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

During Tuesday's hearing before the full court, judges focused more on the current circumstances of the case than on the question of whether it was right to have a Bible displayed on county property. They said Kay Staley, who sued to have the monument in 2003, only has a case as long as the monument is in place and can offend her — but it isn't and cant, they noted: The monument itself was removed last week as part of a restoration of the 1910 county courthouse, and the courthouse itself is closed (at least for now) because of the restoration work. "I do have questions about whether Miss Staley has standing," Chief Judge Edith Jones said. "Standing has to exist throughout (the appeals). My point is that Miss Staley is not walking by that courthouse anymore." Judge Harold DeMoss Jr. backed Jones up: "[Staley's] not going to an empty courthouse, is she?" he asked.

The court can declare a case moot if the controversy involved no longer exists; Judge E. Grady Jolly asked Staley's lawyer, Randall Kallinen, whether Staley would accept a mootness finding as long as the district court's decision that the Bible can't be displayed at the courthouse wasn't vacated and the county still paid her $100,000-plus in legal fees, and he said she would. But Harris County Attorney Mike Stafford said he wants the district court ruling vacated and U.S. District Judge Sim Lake's ruling that the county must pay Staley's legal fees reversed. We'll see how that turns out.

One of the new questions in the case is whether the county removed the monument Friday with the intention of making the case moot. Turns out part of the courthouse restoration project will involve rebuilding a broad staircase that once led to the building's Fannin Street entrance but was removed in the 1950s; the monument would have been in the staircase's way. Restoration work started a while ago, so it's likely moving the monument days before the appeals court hearing was just coincidental, but it still looks odd, as Jolly noted: "Don't you think it looks a little suspicious to the plaintiffs that it was moved on Jan. 19? ... You're representing to this court that the Jan. 19 move had nothing to do with this case?" he asked Stafford. "Yes, sir," Stafford replied.