ACLJ Pleased Supreme Court Acts on Second UT Commandments Case After Last Week's Decision Protecting Display of Nation's Heritage

(Washington, DC) Just days after the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous First Amendment decision clearing the way for governments to accept permanent monuments of their choosing in public parks, the high court has now vacated an appeals court decision in a companion display case sending it back to the federal appeals court for reconsideration in light of its decision in the case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, a critical case in which the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) represented the Utah city in a challenge to a display of the Ten Commandments in a city park.  The action taken by the high court in the companion case involves a similar display in Duchesne City, UT. 

Were extremely pleased that the Justices took the appropriate action in a second case involving the display of the Ten Commandments in a Utah city, said Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel who presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court on behalf of Pleasant Grove City, UT.  The Supreme Courts decision in the Pleasant Grove case sends a strong message giving government the right to speak for itself and the ability to communicate on behalf of its citizens.  Now that the Justices have cleared the way for government to express its views and history through the selection of monuments including religious monuments and displays were confident that the federal appeals court will now reach the proper conclusion in this equally important companion case.

In addition to representing Pleasant Grove City, UT in which the high court issued its unanimous decision February 25th, the ACLJ also represented Duchesne City, UT.

In an order issued March 2nd, the Supreme Court granted the ACLJs Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case of Duchesne City v. Summum (No. 07-690), vacated the judgment in the case, and remanded it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for further consideration in light of the Pleasant Grove City decision.

In the Pleasant Grove decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the government has the right to speak for itself without violating the Constitution.  The court concluded:  The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech . . . A government entity has the right to speak for itself . . . . it is not easy to imagine how government could function if it lacked this freedom . . .  A government entity may exercise this same freedom to express its views when it receives assistance from private sources for the purpose of delivering a government-controlled message.

The Courts opinion is located here.

The ACLJ asked the high court to overturn a decision by Tenth Circuit that ordered Pleasant Grove City, UT to accept and display a monument from a self-described church called Summum because the city displays a Ten Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.  The ACLJ also asked the high court to take the companion case of Duchesne City which was held until the Pleasant Grove case was decided.

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.