U.S. Supreme Court upholds religious neutrality in Ten Commandments decisions

June 27, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON — In two decisions today regarding Ten Commandments displays, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed a principle requiring religious neutrality by government and emphasized the rule that the constitutionality of government displays with religious content depends on the context.

In its decision in McCreary County vs. ACLU, the Court reinforced the idea that the door is not open for governmental establishment of religion.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky counties that, after a federal court ordered them removed, were surrounded by other historical documents in an effort to pass constitutional muster.

"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that that the 'First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,'" the opinion, written by Justice David Souter, read. "When government acts with the ostensible and predominate purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment Clause value of official religion neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government's ostensible object is to take sides."

K. Hollyn Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee, said "both of the decisions uphold the neutrality principle, which is good for religious liberty."

"Proponents of government-sponsored religious displays should know they are on shaky ground," Hollman said. "The Court made it clear that offering sham secular purposes will not carry the day."

In Van Orden vs. Perry, a Texas resident challenged a granite monument on the state capitol grounds arguing that it violates the First Amendment's ban on governmental establishment of religion.

Upholding the monument's constitutionality, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote a plurality opinion, meaning fewer than four justices agreed with his reasoning. That opinion was limited in scope. Rehnquist acknowledged the responsibility to "maintain a division between church and state" and affirmed Stone vs. Graham, noting: "The placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Statehouse grounds is a far more passive use of those texts than was in the case of Stone, where the text confronted elementary school students everyday."

Justice Stephen Breyer joined only in the judgment, expressing reluctance to remove a free-standing monument that had been in place for 40 years.

"Though disappointed in the result, it's apparent the chief justice wrote a cautious opinion," said J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee. "If the monument had been in place 40 days instead of 40 years, Justice Breyer may have voted the other way."

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty filed friend-of-the-court briefs arguing that both displays are unconstitutional. The briefs are available at http://www.bjconline.org/issues/t10c.htm.

-30-