| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Good books |
| Visitor essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other site features |
| Buy a CD |
| Vital notes |
| Spiritual/ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality/ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace/conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
|
|
 | Seven individuals from the three counties and the American Civil Liberties Union initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on 1999-NOV-18. | ||||||||||||||||
| Shortly after the complaint was filed, the court displays were changed
to "include secular historical and legal documents," some of which
were excerpted to "include only that document's reference to God or the
Bible with little or no surrounding text." 1 The additions included
three mainly secular documents:
It also included six documents with religious content -- all relating to Judeo-Christianity:
| ||||||||||||||||
| The counties then filed motions to dismiss the case. | ||||||||||||||||
| The district court denied the motions and issued a temporary injunction, ordering that the displays be removed, and that no similar displays be installed. The court ruled that "the amended displays failed the 'purpose' and 'effect' prongs of the three-part test set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), in that they lacked a secular purpose and had the effect of endorsing religion. The court ordered that the displays be removed 'immediately' and further ordered that 'similar displays' could not be erected in the future." 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| The defendants then installed new displays containing the Decalogue and the full texts of other secular historical and legal documents. Most of the latter had a religious theme. | ||||||||||||||||
| The plaintiffs filed a motion to hold the counties in contempt of court. | ||||||||||||||||
| The defendants responded to the motion by stating that the new displays were not similar to the earlier ones. They "contended that the 'purpose for the display is to educate citizens of the county regarding some of the documents that played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government'." | ||||||||||||||||
| The court rejected the contempt motion and urged the parties to negotiate a settlement with each other. | ||||||||||||||||
| The parties were unable to reach an agreement. | ||||||||||||||||
| The district court issued a second injunction on 2001-JUN-22, ruling that "...the new displays were 'clearly outside the bounds of these permissible uses and [were] violative of the Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. |
The appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals:
| The counties appealed to a panel of three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. |
| The plaintiffs won their case on appeal by a vote of 2 to 1. The court ruled, in part: "...the very text in which the Ten Commandments are contained in the schoolhouse displays manifests a patently religious purpose. Defendants' courthouse displays also manifest a religious purpose because they utterly fail to integrate the Ten Commandments with a secular subject matter. When distilled to their essence, the courthouse displays demonstrate that Defendants intend to convey the bald assertion that the Ten Commandments formed the foundation of American legal tradition. The Supreme Court has held, however, that 'such an avowed secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment' when no effort has been made to integrate the Ten Commandments with a discussion or display of a secular subject matter. Stone, 449 U.S. at 41. Since Defendants’ displays make no such effort, the district court correctly concluded that Defendants' primary purpose was religious....Defendants' courthouse displays assert that the Ten Commandments provide 'the moral background of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our legal tradition.'...The displays emphasize a single religious influence, with no mention of any other religious or secular influences. This fact confirms the rectitude of the district court’s conclusion that Defendants’ purposes were religious." 1 |
| The counties appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, who decided on 2004-DEC-15 to hear oral arguments in the Kentucky and Texas cases. |
Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) briefs:
Amicus Curiae briefs were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) by:
| National School Boards Association |
| Rutherford Institute |
| Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund |
| Judicial Watch |
| Federal government |
| Becket Fund for Religious Liberty |
| Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs |
| Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund |
| Twenty one states joined together in a single brief: AL, FL, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, MS, OH, OK, NM, PA, SC, TX, UT, VA, WI and WY. |
| Faith and Action |
| Pacific Justice Institute |
| Thomas More Law Center |
| Foundation for Moral Law, Inc. |
| American Legion |
| American Center for Law and Justice |
| Family Research Council |
| Focus on the Family |
| WallBuilders, Inc. |
| American Liberties Institute |
| American Humanist Association |
| Anti-Defamation League |
| American Atheists |
| Atheist Law Center |
| Freedom From Relgion [sic] Foundation |
| Council for Secular Humanism |
| International Academy of Humanism |
| Americans United for Separation of Church and State |
| Legal Historians and Law Scholars |
| Baptist Joint Committee. 2 |
On 2005-MAR-02. the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the two cases.
References used:
- "American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky v. McCreary County, Kentucky, 01-5935," United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, at: http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/
- "McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky," U.S. Supreme Court, at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
- "Top Court to Weigh Ten Commandments Cases," Associated Press, 2005-FEB-26, at: http://apnews.myway.com/
|
Site navigation: Home > Religious Laws > Ten Commandments > 2005 SCOTUS cases > here |
Copyright © 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2005-MAR-02
Latest update: 2005-JUN-27
Author: B.A. Robinson
|
|
