Supreme Court Conference Set for Ten Commandments Cases

We just received word that the Supreme Court will be considering both of our Supreme Court cases involving Ten Commandments displays on March 28.  This conference is critical to the progress of these cases.  In order for the Supreme Court to grant review in a case, it is necessary to obtain a four-Justice vote in the conference.  All of our briefs in this stage of the cases have been submitted.

On March 12, our two sets of briefs as well as the briefs of Summum were distributed to the nine Justices of the Supreme Court. Three amicus curiae briefs were filed on our behalf: one by the states of Virginia, Alabama, Colorado, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; one by the cities of Casper, Wyoming; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Ogden, Utah; and one by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Inc., the Non Commissioned Officers Association, Veterans of the Vietnam War, Inc., and The Veterans Coalition. Generally, when amicus briefs in support of petitions for certiorari are filed, it evidences the importance of the particular case.

With the conference scheduled for March 28, we anticipate finding out whether the cases are granted for review on March 31.  It is not uncommon, however, for the Court to hold over cases for an extra conference. 

These are extremely important cases and the results of the Tenth Circuits decision should be reversed.  The idea that next to the Statue of Liberty the government would be required to erect a Statute of Tyranny is wrong.  That is the logical outcome of the Sixth Circuits flawed reasoning.  We had a very strong dissent in our favor from Judge Michael McConnell, who is considered one of the leading jurists on the Religion Clauses as well as the Free Speech Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

We will keep everybody posted as soon as we receive word.  If youd like to review a copy of the briefs, click on Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (No. 07-665) and Duchesne City v. Summum (No. 07-690).