Daily Herald (Provo, UT) - Pleasant Grove Monument Battle Resumes in High Court

by Janice Peterson - Daily Herald, Provo, Utah
    
The United States Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a Utah legal battle that could have important freedom-of-speech ramifications.

The Supreme Court justices heard arguments from lawyers for Pleasant Grove city hoping to keep a monument from Salt Lake City-based religious group Summum out of Pioneer Park. The city is hoping the court will overturn a 2007 ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that granted the religious group the right to place their Seven Aphorisms monument next to a standing Ten Commandments monument donated to the city by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, represented the city before the Supreme Court, saying that if the city were forced to allow the Summum monument, they could be forced to accept anything. Once the city takes possession of a permanent monument, the statements contained on the monument become government speech, and government should be allowed to control the message.

"We're 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," Sekulow said in a press release.

The justices engaged in lively arguments over the small religious group's efforts to place a monument in a public park that already is home to a Ten Commandments display.

The court seemed reluctant to accept the arguments put forth by the religious group that once a government accepts any donations for display in a public park, it must accept all.

"I mean, you have a Statue of Liberty; do we have to have a statue of despotism? Or do we have to put any president who wants to be on Mount Rushmore?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked, acknowledging that his examples might go a bit far.

Yet the court also was uncomfortable with the position of Pleasant Grove, which rejected Summum's request to erect a monument similar to the Ten Commandments marker that has stood in the city's Pioneer Park since 1971.

Justice David Souter wondered how the city could accept the Ten Commandments display and then say, " 'We will not on identical terms take the Summum monument because we don't agree with the message ...' Why isn't that a First Amendment violation?"

Summum wants to erect its "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the park. The group, formed in 1975, says the Seven Aphorisms were given to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the Ten Commandments. Moses destroyed the tablet containing the aphorisms because he saw that the people weren't ready for them, the Summum say.

Summum argued, and a federal appeals court agreed, that Pleasant Grove can't allow some private donations in its public park and reject others.

Cities and organizations from around the country have filed briefs with the Supreme Court in support of both parties in the case. Provo City was among several who signed a brief in support of Pleasant Grove, saying a ruling for the group would leave cities powerless to fight any monuments. An example of a monument the cities believe they would have to allow is one a pastor tried to place in "Historical Monument Plaza" in Casper, Wyo. The pastor argued that the 10th Circuit's ruling in the Summum v. City of Ogden case supported his placing of a monument attacking gays.

Provo Assistant City Attorney Brian Jones said the case will not directly affect Provo because the city removed its Ten Commandments monument after the Ogden decision. Jones said the outcome of the case could have significant outcomes for cities who would need to allow any monument as free speech and many cities may choose to remove their monuments altogether.

"We did move our monument as a result of those decisions," he said.

The Anti-Defamation League and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a neutral brief with the court, asking for the ruling to be overturned. Although they support neither side, the organizations argued that Summum should have made its case based on religious freedom rather than freedom of speech. Were Summum to win the case based on freedom of speech, other cases involving freedom of religion would be harmed.

Steven Sheinberg, associate director of legal affairs for the ADL, said ruling for Summum on the basis of free speech could create a dangerous precedent of government involvement in religion. Sheinberg said his organization's opposition to Summum's argument lies in its support of freedom of religion. Such a freedom should be protected as the Constitution intended -- through the Establishment Clause.

"In short, we care about a strong Establishment Clause and an effective Establishment Clause because we care about freedom of religion in America," he said.

Su Menu, president of Summum, said the group feels that the fight is a matter of fairness. If one statue is allowed on display, others should be as well. Menu said it is irrelevant whether there are any members of the group living in a town where a monument is placed. She said there are people all over who are exposed to the religion's beliefs and people should be allowed to see what they have to say.

"We just feel like all religions have something to offer and that no one religion has the right way," she said.

Menu said she wants to be able to express her own religious views without someone telling her she cannot. She said the group is fighting to put up their monument because they do not want their religious freedom taken away.

"The very foundations of this country were religious freedom and freedom of speech," she said.