In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the
This decision represents a resounding victory for government speech, said Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel who presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court on behalf of Pleasant Grove City, UT. The decision gives government the right to speak for itself and the ability to communicate on behalf of its citizens. Its a significant decision that clears the way for government to express its views and its history through the selection of monuments including religious monuments and displays. This decision also puts a bookend on the litigation surrounding the display of the Ten Commandments thats been taking place for years across the country. The critical question before the Court was, Can a city decide which permanent, unattended monuments, if any, to install on city property? Without dissent, the Court said Yes. Were delighted that the Court upheld the important distinction between government speech and private speech.
The ACLJ asked 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.
In a 9-0 decision announced by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court concluded: In sum, we hold that the Citys decision to accept certain privately donated monuments while rejecting respondents is best viewed as a form of government speech. As a result, the Citys decision is not subject to the Free Speech Clause, and the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise. We therefore reverse.
The high court concluded that the government has the right to speak for itself without violating the Constitution. 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 contended that the Tenth Circuit made a serious error confusing government speech with private speech. In its briefs, the ACLJ argues 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.
Breaking news again . . . our National Motto has come under attack. The National Motto of the United States of America is: “In God We Trust .” Now you may not have even known about that. You may not have even known what our National Motto is as it's not something we often discuss in our country.
This is the story of a major victory for our veterans, for those who died serving our country and for religious liberty at the Supreme Court. A few years ago I went to visit the Memorial Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland right outside of Washington, DC. It has the names of the servicemen who died from...
For many here in the United States, Independence Day means a day off, spending it with family and friends, enjoying good food and nice weather, and a spirit of celebration for the freedoms this country has allowed us to enjoy. At the ACLJ, we continue to fight for the freedom and independence of...
Big victory out of Supreme Court, defending the Peace Cross memorial in Maryland. Today on the show, we discussed the 7-2 ruling by the Supreme Court that the Bladensburg Cross, a memorial erected in 1925 to honor those U.S. soldiers lost in World War I. Justice Samuel Alito authored the high...