McCreary County v. ACLU

McCreary County v. ACLU was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States case decided in 2005 concerning the constitutionality of government displays of religious texts. The case centered on exhibits of the Ten Commandments posted in the courthouses of McCreary County and Pulaski County in Kentucky. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the displays violated the Establishment Clause because their primary purpose was religious, not secular.

Background

The legal dispute began in 1999 when the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky sued McCreary County and Pulaski County over large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments displayed in their respective courthouses. The counties initially defended the displays as acknowledgments of the Ten Commandments' role in American law. Following a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the counties modified the exhibits twice, first by adding other historical documents like the Magna Carta and the text of the Star Spangled Banner, and later by including more explicitly religious materials such as the Sermon on the Mount. The ACLU argued these modifications were a sham intended to preserve a religious message. Both the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found the displays unconstitutional, leading the counties to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Supreme Court decision

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice David Souter applied the "purpose prong" of the Lemon test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The Court held that an objective observer would conclude the government's predominant purpose was to advance religion, noting the history of the displays' modifications revealed an intent to post a religious statement. The opinion distinguished this case from Van Orden v. Perry, a companion case decided the same day which upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol due to its passive, historical nature. The dissent, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, criticized the majority for hostility toward religion and argued the displays legitimately acknowledged the Ten Commandments' historical influence.

Legal analysis

The decision in McCreary County reinforced the importance of governmental purpose in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The Court's analysis focused heavily on the specific sequence of actions taken by the counties, viewing them as evidence of a non-secular intent. This "purpose-driven" approach contrasted with the more accommodationist stance taken in Van Orden v. Perry, highlighting the Court's context-sensitive method in religion cases. Legal scholars noted the ruling reaffirmed the Lemon test's continued relevance, despite criticism from some justices. The case also underscored the divisive nature of the Ten Commandments in public spaces, following earlier controversies like Stone v. Graham.

Subsequent developments

The ruling did not create an absolute bar against displaying the Ten Commandments on public property, but it set a high bar for demonstrating a secular purpose. In the years following, lower courts frequently cited McCreary County when striking down newer displays perceived as having a religious objective. The decision also influenced debates and litigation over other religious symbols in the public square, such as Christmas displays and school prayer policies. The doctrinal tension between the "purpose" test and a more historical, accommodationist view of the Establishment Clause, as seen in the dissent and in later opinions by Justice Samuel Alito, remains a central feature of the Court's religion jurisprudence.

See also

* Establishment Clause * Lemon v. Kurtzman * Van Orden v. Perry * Stone v. Graham * American Civil Liberties Union * First Amendment to the United States Constitution * Separation of church and state in the United States Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:United States Establishment Clause case law Category:2005 in United States case law