McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.

2005-06-27

Headline: Court upholds injunction blocking county courthouse displays of the Ten Commandments, finding county officials acted with a religious purpose and the exhibits failed to present a genuine secular educational message.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Affirms that courts can block religious displays in government buildings lacking genuine secular purpose.
Local governments must show a sincere secular purpose for historical exhibits including religious texts.
Displays’ past history and officials’ statements will be examined to judge intent.

Topics: public displays of religion, religion and government, First Amendment, courthouse displays

Summary

Background

Two Kentucky county governments first posted framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. The American Civil Liberties Union and local citizens sued under federal civil-rights law, arguing the postings violated the Constitution's ban on government establishing religion. The counties then passed resolutions and created a second exhibit that paired the Commandments with other small documents highlighting religious references. After a court blocked that exhibit, the counties installed a third "Foundations of American Law and Government" display with nine equal-sized documents (including the King James Ten Commandments) and a plaque saying the Commandments shaped American legal tradition.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court said courts may examine the government's purpose and that purpose can decide Establishment Clause claims. The Court applied earlier decisions and held that asking why officials acted is a valid, objective inquiry. It also said judges may look at how a display developed over time. Because the counties had earlier displays and resolutions showing a religious aim, and did not convincingly replace that history with a sincere, new secular purpose, the Court agreed the lower courts reasonably found a religious purpose and kept the injunction.

Real world impact

The ruling means local governments must be careful when placing religious texts in public buildings. Judges will look at officials' statements, the selection of accompanying material, and the display's history when deciding if a religious message is being promoted. The decision was made on preliminary injunction review, so changes in purpose or context could alter the result in future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice O’Connor joined the opinion and emphasized the importance of government neutrality toward religion. Justice Scalia dissented, arguing historical practice supports some public acknowledgment of God and criticizing the Court’s approach.