City of Elkhart v. Books
The Supreme Court declined to review a ruling that a Ten Commandments monument outside Elkhart, Indiana's city hall violated the Establishment Clause, leaving the lower court's decision against the city in place.
Justice Stevens wrote separately to defend the decision not to hear the case, while Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, dissented and argued the Court should have taken up the dispute over religious displays on government property.
How it got here: A federal trial court ruled for the city; a divided Seventh Circuit panel reversed; the city asked the Supreme Court to review that reversal, which it declined to do.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Since 1958, a six-foot granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments stood outside Elkhart, Indiana's Municipal Building, funded by a service organization called the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The monument also depicted an eagle, an eye in a pyramid, Stars of David, and a Christian symbol. In 1998, Elkhart County residents sued the city, claiming the display violated the Establishment Clause's separation of church and state.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court have stepped in to decide whether a decades-old Ten Commandments monument outside a city hall violated the separation of church and state?
Why it matters
Because the Court chose not to hear the case, the Seventh Circuit's ruling against the monument stands only in that circuit, leaving cities elsewhere without a nationwide answer on whether long-standing religious monuments on government property violate the Constitution. Local governments displaying similar monuments remain exposed to lawsuits, and the underlying legal disagreement over religious displays remained unresolved by the full Court.
What changes now
Because the Supreme Court denied certiorari, no nationwide rule was set; the Seventh Circuit's decision against the monument stands as the final word for that case. The monument's fate in Elkhart is governed by the lower court's ruling, and other jurisdictions facing similar disputes over religious displays on public property will continue litigating those questions without additional guidance from the Supreme Court on this record.
What this does not decide
A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and sets no binding nationwide precedent. The Supreme Court did not decide whether Ten Commandments monuments on government property are constitutional generally; it only left the Seventh Circuit's decision regarding this particular monument undisturbed.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Stevens
“one reason that dissents from the denial of certiorari should be disfavored is that they are seldom answered, and therefore may include a less than complete statement of the facts bearing on the question whether the case merits review”Stevens explains why he thinks dissents from cert denials can be misleading.
Justice Stevens defended the denial of certiorari, arguing dissents from cert denials are often misleading because they go unanswered. He argued the dissent omitted key facts, including that the monument's opening lines - in large font - proclaim 'I AM the LORD thy God,' and that religious leaders at the dedication spoke of religious redemption rather than mere cross-cultural significance. He concluded that making a text nonsectarian does not strip it of religious meaning.
Dissent — Justice Rehnquist
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued the Court should have granted certiorari. He contended the monument's secular purpose deserved deference, that the coercion concerns present in school settings were absent here, and that viewed in context with other historical monuments the display did not endorse religion. He would have decided whether the 40-year-old monument had to be removed.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The dispute centered on the Lemon test, a framework courts once used to decide if a government action violates the Establishment Clause by asking whether it has a secular purpose, whether its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, and whether it excessively entangles government with religion.
- The Seventh Circuit found the monument lacked a secular purpose and had the primary effect of advancing religion, relying partly on a prior Supreme Court case striking down mandatory Ten Commandments postings in public school classrooms.
- The dissenting justices argued that case was different because it involved coercive pressure on captive schoolchildren, a concern absent from a monument standing outside a courthouse and government building.
- The dissenting justices contended that courts should defer to a government's stated secular purpose - here, honoring the Commandments' historical and legal influence - so long as that purpose is sincere and not a pretext for promoting religion.
- The dissenting justices further argued that, viewed in context alongside other historical monuments on the same lawn, the display did not send an unmistakable message of government endorsement of religion.
- Because at least four justices did not vote to grant review, the petition for certiorari was denied and the Seventh Circuit's ruling against the city remained in effect.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Distinguishes Stone v. Graham (449 U.S. 39)
The dissent argued this school-classroom Ten Commandments case does not control because it involved coercion of captive students.
Reaffirms Lynch v. Donnelly (465 U.S. 668)
The dissent relied on this case's rule that a display's context matters in judging whether it endorses religion.