Supreme Court Urged to Protect Nations Heritage Displayed in Americas Cities in First Amendment Case

This morning in oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), urged the Court to preserve sound precedent involving the well-established distinction between government speech and private speech in a case that could force cities to either dismantle a host of monuments, memorials, and other displaysincluding long-standing patriotic and historical displaysor else let all comers install privately owned monuments or displays, regardless of content.

Were hopeful that the Supreme Court will reject a twisted view of the First Amendment that could create havoc in America over how local, state and federal governments choose to memorialize significant events.  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.  The fact is that government speech means the government can control its message.  For example, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny.  Were hopeful the high court will uphold this important distinction between government speech and private speech.

We are asking the high court to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 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.

We contend that the Tenth Circuit made a serious error confusing government speech with private speech.  In our briefs, we argue that a citys selection of which items to display in a park like its selection of decorations for government buildings is government speech, and no private entity can claim a Me too! right of access for its own preferred displays.

Numerous 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).

The case argued today is Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (No. 07-665), and a decision by the high court will come before the end of the term.  Our written arguments, and opening and reply briefs, are posted online at www.aclj.org.