ACLJ's Final Brief Filed in Supreme Court Case -Numerous Organizations Support ACLJ Position

Today we filed in the Supreme Court of the United States our reply brief, containing written legal arguments on behalf of a Utah city in a case that could affect local governments across the country.  We have brought to the Supreme Court an appeal from a decision that would have forced cities either to dismantle a host of monuments, memorials, and other displays, including long-standing patriotic and historical displays, or else let all comers install privately owned monuments or displays, regardless of content.

 

Summum is a self-described church, founded in 1975 in Salt Lake City in response to alleged communications from Advanced Beings. Summum had sued Pleasant Grove City in federal court, claiming that because the city had erected in a city park a donated Ten Commandments monument, the First Amendment compelled the city to accept and display Summums proposed Seven Aphorisms of Summum monument as well.

 

A federal district court declined to order the city to erect Summums monument, but a three-judge federal appeals court in the Tenth Circuit reversed. We then sought review by the full twelve federal appeals court judges of the Tenth Circuit, but the court split 6-6, leaving the panel decision in place.

 

We then took the case to the Supreme Court.  Summums assertion of a right to force its monument upon the city has no legitimate basis in Supreme Court case law.  I will present oral arguments to the high court November 12th on behalf of Pleasant Grove.  Were hopeful the high court will overturn the Tenth Circuits decision that ultimately would cause havoc for local governments, forcing them to remove long-standing and well established patriotic, religious and historical displays to avoid being sued for failure to put up any and every other proposed monument to come along the pike.

 

Our reply brief explains:  The basic question is whether a city gets to decide which permanent, unattended monuments, if any, to install on city property.  The answer is Yes.  Responding to Summums claim that the First Amendment gives Summum a right to force its monument upon the city, our reply brief notes that the right to free speech in parks extends to traditional forms of personal communication like speaking and leafleting.  No one can seriously suggest that a practice of private citizens affixing two-ton concrete memorials or statues to public park grounds is an activity that is traditionally associated with such public spaces.

 

Fifteen friend-of- the-court (amicus) briefs have been filed supporting our position, including briefs from the United States government, fourteen states, nine cities (including New York City), veterans groups (including the American Legion and the VFW), and various religious liberty groups (including both Christian and Jewish organizations). Even strict separationist groups that typically oppose our position in religion cases, like the American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way, filed briefs in support of neither party which basically agreed with us on the First Amendment free speech questions at issue in this case.  Only two amicus briefs were filed in support of Summum.

 

The Supreme Court announced on March 31, 2008, that it had granted our petition to hear the case.  Todays filing represents the final salvo in an exchange of written arguments. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for November 12 and will likely issue a decision sometime in 2009. The case is Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (No. 07-665).