McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2, 2005 Decided June 27, 2005
Full case name	McCreary County, Kentucky, et al., v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, et al.
Docket no.	03-1693
Citations	545 U.S. 844 (more) 125 S. Ct. 2722; 162 L. Ed. 2d 729; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5211; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 532
Holding
Displaying the Ten Commandments bespeaks a religious object unless they are integrated with a secular message. The court saw no integration here because of a lack of a demonstrated analytical or historical connection between the Commandments and the other documents.(Thus, the displays were in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	Souter, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer
Concurrence	O'Connor
Dissent	Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas; Kennedy (only as to parts II, III)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), is a case which was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue is whether government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the displays—in this case, a Ten Commandments display at the McCreary County courthouse in Whitley City, Kentucky—were unconstitutional. The appeal from that decision, argued by Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, urged reformulation or abandonment of the "Lemon test" set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which has been applied to religious displays on government property and to other Establishment Clause issues.

The case was heard at the same time as Van Orden v. Perry, a similar case challenging a display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas State Capitol in Austin.

The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, in a 5-4 decision, that the display is unconstitutional. The similar case of Van Orden v. Perry was handed down the same day with the opposite verdict (also with a 5 to 4 decision). The "swing vote" between these two cases was Justice Stephen Breyer.

Case History

After two Kentucky Counties each posted large, readily visible copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued.

The displays around the Commandments were modified to include eight smaller, historical documents containing religious references as their sole common element, e.g., the Declaration of Independence's "endowed by their Creator" passage.

The District Court followed the Lemon v. Kurtzman test to find that the original display lacked any secular purpose because the Commandments are a distinctly religious document, and that the second version lacked such a purpose because the Counties narrowly tailored their selection of foundational documents to those specifically referring to Christianity.

After changing counsel, the Counties revised the exhibits again. The new posting, entitled "The Foundations of American Law and Government Display," consists of nine framed documents of equal size. One sets out the Commandments explicitly identified as the "King James Version," quotes them at greater length, and explains that they have profoundly influenced the formation of Western legal thought and the American Nation. With the Commandments are framed copies of the Star Spangled Banner's lyrics and the Declaration of Independence, accompanied by statements about their historical and legal significance.

On the ACLU's motion, the District Court included this third display in the injunction despite the Counties' professed intent to show that the Commandments were part of the foundation of American Law and Government and to educate County citizens as to the documents. The court took proclaiming the Commandments' foundational value as a religious, rather than secular, purpose under Stone v. Graham and found that the Counties' asserted educational goals crumbled upon an examination of this case's history.

The Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the decision, stressing that, under Stone, displaying the Commandments bespeaks a religious object unless they are integrated with a secular message. The court saw no integration here because of a lack of a demonstrated analytical or historical connection between the Commandments and the other documents.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 545
• Separation of church and state in the United States
• Van Orden v. Perry
• Stone v. Graham

External links

• Liberty Counsel press release
• ACLU press release
• U.S. Supreme Court docket 03-1693 McCreary County v. Jenny Johnson ACLU of Kentucky
• Religion & Ethics Newsweekly (PBS), includes video coverage