The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear two cases regarding the constitutionality of Ten Commandments plaques and monuments on government property. The case in Texas involves a Ten Commandments display erected on the grounds of the state capitol in Austin in 1961. The other case regards framed copies of the Ten Commandments that were placed in courthouses in two Kentucky counties. The high court last visited the issue in 1980 when it banned the posting of copies of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.
Although there are more than a dozen other such cases pending in the courts, the timing of the Supreme Court’s decision to act on two such cases caught some court observers off guard. Just the week before, the justices rejected an appeal filed by ousted Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who lost his job after he defied a federal judge’s order to remove a Ten Commandments monument he had erected in the rotunda of the state judiciary building.
At issue in both cases before the justices is whether the display of the Ten Commandments on public property is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. In the Texas case, the monument was a gift from the Fraternal Order of Eagles. It is situated near several other monuments on the grounds of the state capitol. The case was brought by Thomas Van Orden, a former criminal defense lawyer who was quoted last year as saying, “I didn’t sue religion. I sued the state for putting a religious monument on the Capitol grounds.” Although Van Orden lost his case in the federal courts, the Supreme Court agreed to hear it.
The Kentucky case involves displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties. After a lawsuit was filed against the displays by the American Civil Liberties Union, county officials added other documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta. Added to the displays was a notice stating that the various documents “played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government.” However, a federal appeals court upheld an injunction against the original and new displays, ruling that the “predominate purpose” of displaying the commandments was religious, not educational or historical.The Supreme Court will hear arguments in both cases in February, with a ruling due by the end of June.
The decision by the justices to hear the two cases was praised by conservative groups. Jay Sekulow is chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which is involved in nearly 20 cases involving challenges to longstanding displays of the Ten Commandments throughout the country. “This is a critical opportunity for the high court to clarify one of the most confusing areas of church/state law. After more than 20 years and many conflicting appeals courts decisions, we’re pleased that the SupremeCourt has agreed to hear cases involving the public display of the Ten Commandments. It is clear that the Commandments have played a vital role in the formation of western law. They are very important from a historical standpoint and are also widely displayed throughout our country–including the very chamber where the Supreme Court will hear this case. We are hopeful that the high court will move to protect the constitutionality of these displays,” Sekulow said. A ceiling panel in the Supreme Court building, which was built in the early 1930s, depicts 18 famous lawgivers. Included is Moses holding a tablet that represents the Ten Commandments.
Liberty Counsel, which is representing McCreary County in the Kentucky case, calls it the “blockbuster church/state case of the year.” Mat Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated, “The decision to review a case involving the display of the Ten Commandments is long overdue. The lower courts are hopelessly in confusion over the constitutionality of government displays of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments belong in a display of historical documents important to the foundation of our country. American history simply would be incomplete without reference or acknowledgement of the significant role religion, including the Ten Commandments, has played in our founding, history, and legal jurisprudence.”
Likewise, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, public displays of the Ten Commandments recognize the “significant historical contribution made to America” and the foundation they have served to our legal system. Perkins added, “It is naive and incorrect to deny that religion has had a significant historical role in defining the character of our nation. Just take a walk around Washington. The buildings in and around our nation’s capitol reflect religious symbolism as do many other government buildings across the country.”
Robert Knight is director of Concerned Women for America’s Culture and Family Institute. “This Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to humbly recognize where its own authority comes from, which is the Supreme Lawgiver. Our understanding of law, and the proper limits of man’s power over his fellow man, rest on a Biblical foundation. Remove that foundation and you create the sort of legal anarchy that many judges are now perpetuating on the American people. Justices need to acknowledge that special interest groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have no right to erase the history of the United States by targeting the removal of all symbols or monuments with religious meaning. Public display of the Ten Commandments is not an attempt to impose a certain religion on the country, but to acknowledge the cultural, spiritual and political history of the United States. Without that basic understanding, we could lose freedom quickly. The First Amendment was not drafted for such purposes as tearing down the Ten Commandments in every city and town; it was drafted precisely to protect the people from the sort of fanaticism that we see in secularist groups and rogue judges who want to make atheism America’s official religion,” Knight stated.
Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, hailed the Supreme Court’s announcement. “We are gratified to learn that the high court will finally take up this controversial matter, and hopefully strengthen guidelines concerning the display of religious icons on government property. The court has already stated that the Commandments are a preeminent statement of religious belief; and as such, they do not belong on public land. The commandments are clearly religious statements demanding a belief in monotheism and allegiance to a deity. And fortunately our legal system is rooted in English Common Law, not the law of the Old Testament which supported slavery, subordination of women, and other practices which Americans would today find to be intolerable and oppressive,” Johnson said.
David Friedman, general counsel for the ACLU of Kentucky, who argued the case before the appeals court, said, “The Ten Commandments advocate believing in God, observing the Sabbath and not worshipping idols. Those are religious beliefs that should be left to each individual. Especially in a courthouse, people should not be made to feel like outsiders in their own community because they may not share the prevailing religious view.”
Americans United Executive Director, Rev. Barry Lynn, said, “Religious symbols belong in houses of worship, not courthouses, city halls and public schools. If government officials are eager to post something that deals with the foundation of American law, they need look no further than the U.S. Constitution.” Lynn said the Ten Commandments is an important religious code to many, but denied that it is the basis of U.S. law. “Many of the commandments address religious and moral decrees, not legal mandates. For example, it’s not illegal to worship false gods or fail to honor the Sabbath. The government operates under the Constitution, not religious law,” Lynn said.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the two cases already has had a ripple effect across the country. On the same day of the announcement, a federal judge in Seattle delayed a ruling on a lawsuit seeking removal of a Ten Commandments monument outside the Everett police headquarters, until after the high court decides the matter. U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik originally planned to issue a ruling just weeks after he heard arguments in the Everett case. At issue is whether to dismiss the suit, order the removal of the monument or send the case to trial.
Also on the same day, the Hart County, Georgia, Board of Commissioners agreed to accept the gift of a Ten Commandments plaque from a citizen and place it next to the mission statement in the county courthouse.
And in Cumberland, Maryland, the Allegany County Commission ordered a Ten Commandments monument moved back to the courthouse lawn a week after it removed it for fear of a First Amendment lawsuit. The monument had been placed on the lawn of a neighboring gallery which is run by a private foundation that had agreed to take it. Like the Texas case, Cumberland’s marker is one of nearly 200 that the FOE donated to municipalities across the nation for public display in the late 1950s and early ‘60s. The monument in Cumberland had been in place since 1957. County Administrator Vance Ishler said that once the Supreme Court rules on the Texas case, the commissioners will take any action necessary to comply with the law. “They will follow the direction of the Supreme Court. Hopefully, there won’t be any need to move it again,” Ishler said.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]