Facts of the Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
In 2004, Thomas Van Orden brought an action against the state of Texas in a national district court, on the grounds that a Ten Commandments monument situated on the state capitol building depicted unlawful government advocacy of religion. Van Orden believed that this violated the Constitution's establishment clause that stops the government from enacting legislation, “recognizing instituting of religion”. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the federal district court ruled against Van Orden arguing that the Ten Commandments monument acted as a lawful secular objective and would not give the impression of government endorsement of religion to a reasonable observer.
The Legal Question
Does the Ten Commandments monument situated on the state capitol building undermines the constitutional establishment clause that stops the administration from enacting legislation “recognizing instituting of religion?”
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Courts Decision
The courts ruled against Orden in a five-four ruling. The decision of the Courts was presented by Chief Justice Rehnquist, where the Courts asserted that the establishment clause in the First Amendment did not preclude the monument situated on the state capitol building.
The Court’s Rationale that Supports its Decision
The popular opinion stated that the monument was part of the country’s custom of acknowledging the Ten Commandments’ important implication. Even though the Ten Commandments are devout, the popularity reasoned, encouraging a message dependable with religion or having religious content does not violent the establishment clause.
The Rationale of the Dissenting Opinions
The dissenting opinion in the Van Orden v. Perry (2005) case grounded on the opinion that the court should move its interpretation away from the fundamental purpose of the establishment clause in the First Amendment . The broader objective of the clause which is to ensure the most comprehensive range of religious tolerance and liberty for all. The clause seeks to avoid the disruptiveness grounded on religion, which encourages social conflict, undermining the strength of religion and government alike. When we approach the case, from this perspective, we are able to observe that the Ten Commandments monument situated on the state capitol building goes against the constitutional establishment clause.
McCreary County v. ACLU (2005)
The ACLU (The American Civil Liberties Union) took legal action against three districts in the state of Kentucky in a national district court for exhibiting framed copies of the Ten Commandments in public schools and courthouses. The American Civil Liberties Union presented their argument that is grounded on the fact that the demonstration of the Ten Commandments went against the establishment clause in the First Amendment that precludes the government from enacting legislation “recognizing instituting of religion.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the national district law court ruled in favor of ACLU, stating that the exhibition of the Ten Commandments went against the establishment clause.
The Legal Question
Do the demonstration of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and public schools goes against the establishment clause in the First Amendment that stops the government from enacting legislation “recognizing instituting of religion?”
Was the inference that the demonstrations’ purpose had been to further religion adequate for the exhibition’s annulment?
The Courts Decision
The courts ruled in favor of ACLU, stating that the exhibition of the Ten Commandments violated the establishment clause. In a five-four opinion presented by Justice David Scouter, popularity argued that the exhibition of the Ten Commandments in the public schools and courtroom undermine the establishment clause because the purpose of these exhibitions was to further religion.
The Courts' Rationale that Supports its Decision
In the case of McCreary County v. ACLU (2005), the Courts ruled that in both displays, a rational onlooker would have determined that the administration is trying to promote religion. The initial exhibition offering the Ten Commandments in remoteness; the subsequent demonstration of the Ten Commandments together with other devout channels; the ultimate depiction of the Ten Commandments is in the “Foundation of the American Law” that is demonstration that the nation attained “for any means to keep these religious documents on the walls of different courtrooms”.
The Rationale of the Dissenting Opinions
The dissenting view in the McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) case was grounded on the assertion that public acknowledgment of faith or religion is permissible under the United States Constitution. The dissenting opinion illustrated that the posting of religious content in a public space, such as the Ten Commandments goes against the assertion that the administration cannot indulge one religion over the others . The dissenting opinion was of the opinion that is the expression of religion within a public space or forum had to be non-denominational, then religion within the public forum would not exist at all. Owing to the fact that the Ten Commandments are widely accepted within the Christian faith, Judaism, and also the Islamic faith which makes up a great percentage of the overall religion within the United States, the depiction of the Ten Commandments should not be rationally comprehended to be the government’s endorsement of a given religion.
Analysis of Van Orden and McCreary Case
In the first case, Van Orden v. Perry (2005), the courts ruled against Van Orden arguing that the Ten Commandments monument acted as a lawful secular objective and would not give the impression of government endorsement of religion to a reasonable observer . The second case is the McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) case, the courts ruled in favor of ACLU stating that the exhibition of the Ten Commandments undermined the establishment clause . Both decision touch on the application of the establishment clause on demonstration of religion within a public forum. The different outcomes of the cases illustrate the division within the court on the exhibition of religion within the public forum.
In the Van Orden v. Perry case, Orden contended that the exhibition of the Ten Commandments was illegal as it undermined the establishment clause. His argument was rejected by the district law court as well as the federal courts. The popularity opinion asserted that the establishment clause in the First Amendment was dual. This is because, it recognized the vital role that religion has played through the history of the nation, and it also recognized the concerns that emerge surrounding the differentiation of church and state. The popularity in the case did not apply either the endorsement test or the lemon test that were regularly utilized in the establishment clause cases. Instead, the courts founded their inference on the uninterrupted history of formal recognition by the three arms of administration of the role of Sreligious conviction in the United States. Founded on this argument, the popularity in the case argued that the history of religion in government coupled application of the establishment clause in prior cases such as the Lynch v. Donnelly case of 1984 offer sufficient suggestion that the Ten Commandments might have an earthly importance that’s its founded in the historical role in culture and United States Laws.
In the McCreary County v. ACLU case, there was insufficient evidence of legal intent, as well as there was no evidence of the type of religion-grounded motivation within McCreary County, in which both courts regarded the exhibition of the Ten Commandments in both county courtroom within the state of Kentucky. In this case, Justice Stephen Breyer offered the decisive vote that invalidated the display of the Ten Commandments in county courtroom, and also in public-school. The popularity in the case believed that the religious exhibition worked to endorse region. This behavior went against the profoundly ingrained history within the nation against the integration of Church and State. The Courts believed that a public courthouse is not the right conscious place for a religious exhibition such as the Ten Commandment, particularly in public view. This action amounted to combining church and state, which is against the First Amendment. McCreary County argued that the Framers of the Constitution used religious content such as the Ten Commandments in their legislation and also in songs and speeches. The Court believed that the government should not impose notions of monotheistic religion on the public using demonstrations such as the Ten Commandments in a public forum or space.
References
"McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1693. Accessed 4 Jul. 2019
"Van Orden v. Perry." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1500. Accessed 4 Jul. 2019
“ Parmanent Religious Displays”. Pew Research Center, https://www.pewforum.org/2007/06/27/religious-displays-and-the-courts3/.Accessed 4 Jul. 2019
Munoz, Vincent Phillip. "Thou Shalt Not Post the Ten Commandments-McCreary, Van Orden, and the Future of Religious Display Cases." Tex. Rev. L. & pOL. 10 (2005): 357.
Unger, Michael A. "After the supreme word: The effect of McCreary County v. ACLU (2005) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005) on support for public displays of the Ten Commandments." American Politics Research 36, no. 5 (2008): 750-775.
Van Orden, V. Perry. "545 US 677 (2005)(Rehnquist, J. writing for the plurality, criticizing Lemon and declaring it in apposite to Establishment Clause analysis of a challenge to a “passive” Ten Commandments display on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol; Breyer, J., collecting cases)." Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe 530: 55-56.
