ACLJ Back in Utah defending Ten Commandments Display after Supreme Court Victory
Summum v. Pleasant Grove, a Supreme Court case which we won earlier this year in a 9-0 victory, is quite remarkably far from over.
First, some background. Six years ago, a religious group called Summum asked the City of Pleasant Grove, Utah to erect in its public park a stone monument of its so-called Seven Aphorisms. Some of these aphorisms, which Summum calls religious in nature, include the principle of psychokinesis, the principle of vibration, and the principle of gender.
Summums request to have its monument placed in Pleasant Groves
When Pleasant Grove declined Summums offer to erect its monument, Summum sued the city in federal court. It argued that the citys decision to display the Ten Commandments, but not the Seven Aphorisms, violated Summums right to free speech under the First Amendment.
After a court of appeals held that the city was constitutionally required to display Summums monument, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking that the Court reverse the decision.
When the Supreme Court accepted our petition, we went to work on briefing the issues, organizing amicus briefs, and preparing for oral argument.
In February of this year, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision of the court of appeals. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that when a city accepts and displays a monument from a private group, it is not required under the First Amendments Free Speech Clause to accept and display all monuments donated by any private party. Bottom line: Pleasant Grove is free to display the Ten Commandments without having to display the Seven Aphorisms.
With its free speech claim legally dead, Summum is now seeking to amend its complaint to include an Establishment Clause claim. According to Summum, the citys decision to display the Ten Commandments, but not its Seven Aphorisms, is an improper endorsement by the city of one religious code over another.
Summums proposed Establishment Clause claim is nothing more than its Free Speech claim dressed up in different legal garb.
Though the Supreme Court held that the government enjoys the right to decide which monuments to accept and place in their parks, and which to reject, Summum doesnt think this right applies when the Ten Commandments are involved and when a group wants to display a religious monument.
The essential problem with Summums argument is that the Ten Commandments are not a purely religious monument, like Summums Seven Aphorisms. In 2005, the Supreme Court recognized that though the Decalogue has religious significance, it is clear that the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning. Indeed, the Court noted, acknowledgments of the role played by the Ten Commandments in our Nations heritage are common throughout
To equate the Ten Commandments with the Seven Aphorisms, as Summum must argue, is not accurate as a matter of fact; it is not accurate as a matter of law. And Summums efforts to bring down the Ten Commandments, by forcing the city to put up the Seven Aphorisms, must be rejected.
In his concurrence in the Pleasant Grove decision, Justice Scalia wrote:
The city can safely exhale. Its residents and visitors can now return to enjoying Pioneer Parks wishing well, its historic granaryand, yes, even its Ten Commandments monumentwithout fear that they are complicit in an establishment of religion.
Given Summums latest tactic, the city will have to hold its breath a little longer.
A court hearing on Summums motion to amend its complaint to pursue an Establishment Clause claim will be held on July 14.
This latest move by Summum establishes one thing for sure: Despite their protests that the Supreme Court case was not about removing the Ten Commandments, their actions clearly establish that their intent was removal the entire time.