Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

Last updated
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 12, 2008
Decided February 25, 2009
Full case namePleasant Grove City, Utah, et al. v. Summum
Docket no. 07-665
Citations555 U.S. 460 ( more )
129 S. Ct. 1125; 172 L. Ed. 2d 853; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1636; 77 U.S.L.W. 4136; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 648
Holding
A municipality's acceptance and acquisition of a privately funded permanent monument erected in a public park while refusing to accept other privately funded permanent memorials is a valid expression of governmental speech.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceStevens, joined by Ginsburg
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Thomas
ConcurrenceBreyer
ConcurrenceSouter (in judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009), is a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled on the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on a government establishment of religion specifically with respect to monuments (e.g., statues) on public land.

Contents

Issue

In this case, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the municipality of Pleasant Grove, Utah, which allows privately donated monuments, including one of the Ten Commandments, to be displayed on public property, must also let the Summum church put up its own statue, similar in size to the one of the Ten Commandments.

According to the New York Times: "In 2003, the president of the Summum church wrote to the mayor here with a proposal: the church wanted to erect a monument inscribed with the Seven Aphorisms in the city park, 'similar in size and nature' to the one devoted to the Ten Commandments. The city declined, a lawsuit followed and a federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment required the city to display the Summum monument." [1]

The Supreme Court's decision was expected to be the most important establishment clause decision of the term. Some court-watchers believed the Court would rule that the United States Constitution does not allow government to favor one religion over another. [2]

Arguing for the petitioner (the City of Pleasant Grove) was Jay Alan Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), and for the Summum, attorney Pamela Harris of the firm O’Melveny & Myers. The ACLJ argued that there should be a distinction between government speech and private speech and though the government should have the right to display the 10 Commandments, it should not have to endorse all private speech. [3]

Holding

On February 25, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Summum in the Pleasant Grove case. Justice Samuel Alito, in his opinion for the court, explained that a municipality's acceptance and acquisition of a privately funded permanent monument erected in a public park, while refusing to accept other privately funded permanent memorials, is a valid expression of governmental speech, which is permissible and not an unconstitutional interference with the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

According to Alito, "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" is perceived by an ordinary and reasonable observer to be an expression of values and ideas of the government, the owner of the park and the monument, even though the particular idea expressed by the monument is left to the interpretation of the individual observer.

Alito made a clear distinction between forms of private speech in public parks, such as rallies and temporary holiday displays (Christmas trees and menorahs), and the government speech represented by permanent monuments. He opined that even long winded speakers eventually go home with their leaflets, and holiday displays are taken down; but, permanent monuments endure, and are obviously associated with their owners.

Alito wrote, "cities and other jurisdictions take some care in accepting donated monuments." While Summum attempted to persuade the Court that preventing governments from selecting monuments on the basis of content would be tenable, Justice Alito noted that such a situation could put government in the position of accepting permanent monuments with conflicting messages, that do not represent the values and ideals of the community, or removing all monuments from public space. He questioned whether, if the law followed the view expressed by Summum, New York City would have been required to accept a Statue of Autocracy from the German Empire or Imperial Russia when it accepted the Statue of Liberty from France. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pleasant Grove, Utah</span> City in Utah, United States

Pleasant Grove, originally named Battle Creek, is a city in Utah County, Utah, United States, known as "Utah's City of Trees". It is part of the Provo–Orem Metropolitan Statistical Area. The population was 37,726 at the 2020 Census.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summum</span> Religion and philosophy

Summum is a religion and philosophy that began in 1975 as a result of American citizen Claude "Corky" Nowell's claimed encounter with beings he described as "Summa Individuals". According to Nowell, these beings presented him with concepts regarding the nature of creation, concepts that have always existed and are continually re-introduced to humankind by advanced beings who work along the pathways of creation. As a result of his experience, Nowell founded Summum in order to share the "gift" he received with others. In 1980, as a reflection of his newfound path, he changed his name to Summum Bonum Amon Ra, but news stories indicate he went by Corky Ra. Summum religious practices draw upon both Ancient Egyptian religion and the Hebrew prophet Moses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jay Sekulow</span> American attorney (born 1956)

Jay Alan Sekulow is an American lawyer, radio, television talk show host and politically conservative media personality. He has been chief counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) since 1991. As a member of President Donald Trump's legal team, he served as lead outside counsel for Trump's first impeachment trial in the United States Senate.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. At issue was whether the Court should continue to inquire into the purpose behind a religious display and whether evaluation of the government's claim of secular purpose for the religious displays may take evolution into account under an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment analysis.

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

<i>Glassroth v. Moore</i>

Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, and its companion case Maddox and Howard v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290, is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that held a 2+12 ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the rotunda of the Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama by then-Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas More Law Center</span> Christian conservative law firm in Michigan, US

The Thomas More Law Center is a Christian, conservative, nonprofit, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and active throughout the United States. According to the Thomas More Law Center website, its goals are to "preserve America's Judeo-Christian heritage, defend the religious freedom of Christians, restore time-honored moral and family values, protect the sanctity of human life, and promote a strong national defense and a free and sovereign United States of America."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dee Benson</span> American judge (1948–2020)

Dee Vance Benson was a Senior United States district judge and chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. He was briefly a professional soccer player. He was nominated as judge by President George H. W. Bush on May 16, 1991, and confirmed by the United States Senate on September 12, 1991, receiving his commission on September 16, 1991. In May 2004, Chief Justice William Rehnquist appointed Judge Benson to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a seven-year term.

In Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute was unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacked a nonreligious, legislative purpose. The statute required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the state. The copies of the Ten Commandments were purchased with private funding, but the Court ruled that because they were being placed in public classrooms they were in violation of the First Amendment.

Claude Rex Nowell, also known as Corky King, Corky Ra, and Summum Bonum Amon Ra, was an American businessman and founder of Summum, a non-profit philosophical and religious organization that practices a modern form of mummification.

United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 48, a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital, now known as Faith and Liberty, is a Christian outreach organization ministering to top-level government officials. The organizational headquarters is located in Washington, D.C.

Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, 564 U.S. 117 (2011), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, which required government officials recuse in cases involving a conflict of interest, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the law requires government officials to recuse themselves from advocating for and voting on the passage of legislation if private commitments to the interests of others materially affect the official's judgment. Under the terms of this law, the Nevada Commission on Ethics censured city councilman Michael Carrigan for voting on a land project for which his campaign manager was a paid consultant. Carrigan challenged his censure in court and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in his favor, claiming that casting his vote was protected speech. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that voting by a public official on a public matter is not First Amendment speech.

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment.

The Ten Commandments Monument, authorized by the Oklahoma legislature and approved by the governor in 2009, was installed on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol, in Oklahoma City, in 2012. The mere concept engendered years of political controversy, court suits based on freedom of religion issues, destruction in 2014 by a man who drove his car into it, replacement in the same location, and even attempts to remove Supreme Court justices who ruled in 2014 that the monument must be removed to another site. After Governor Mary Fallin, key legislators, and the justices agreed on a substitute site, the monument was removed from the capitol grounds in 2015.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overruling the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act. It decided 6–3 that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks of "immoral" or "scandalous" matter is unconstitutional by permitting the United States Patent & Trademark Office to engage in viewpoint discrimination, which violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the separation of church and state related to maintaining the Peace Cross, a World War I memorial shaped after a Latin cross, on government-owned land, though initially built in 1925 with private funds on private lands. The case was a consolidation of two petitions to the court, that of The American Legion who built the cross, and of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission who own the land and maintain the memorial. Both petitions challenged the Fourth Circuit's ruling that, regardless of the secular purpose the cross was built for in honoring the deceased soldiers, the cross emboldened a religious symbol and had ordered it altered or razed. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling in a 7–2 decision, determining that since the Cross had stood for decades without controversy, it did not violate the Establishment Clause and could remain standing.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the City of Boston's program that allowed groups to have their flags flown outside Boston City Hall. In a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Court ruled that the city violated a Christian group's free speech rights when it denied their request to raise a Christian flag over City Hall.

References

  1. Liptak, Adam (November 10, 2008). "From Tiny Sect, Weighty Issue for Justices". New York Times . Retrieved 2008-11-11.
  2. "The Supreme Court's New Term". New York Times . 2008-10-06.
  3. "In the Courts". ACLJ . 2008-11-09. Archived from the original on 2008-01-14.
  4. "Supreme Court rules against Summum in Ten Commandments case". Salt Lake Tribune. 2009-02-25. Retrieved 2014-12-26.