washingtonpost.com  > Nation > Courts > Supreme Court

Justices Agree To Hear 2 Cases On Display of Commandments

Court's 1980 Ruling On Subject Has Spawned Varying Interpretations

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 13, 2004; Page A03

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will hear two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments on government property, setting the stage for rulings on an issue that has divided the public and the lower courts for more than two decades.

In a brief order, the court said it would review a federal appeals court ruling that upheld a six-foot-tall monument to the commandments on the grounds of the Texas state capitol in Austin, plus another ruling that barred an exhibition of the commandments with other historical documents in a Kentucky courthouse.


Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is shown by a monument to the Ten Commandments near the state capitol in Austin. Abbott has said he will argue the state's case before the Supreme Court. (Harry Cabluck -- AP)

_____Ten Commandment Cases_____
Kentucky Case (ACLU v. McCreary County)
Texas Case (Van Orden v. Perry)
____ The Supreme Court ____
__ The 2003-04 Term __

Major Decisions: Summaries, rulings and how each justice voted on the major cases before the Supreme Court.

__ Latest News __



More Stories

__ About the Supreme Court __

Interactive Primer
Background information on the court including biographies of the current justices.


The court last addressed the subject in 1980, when it struck down, 5 to 4, a Kentucky law that required the posting of the commandments in public school classrooms. The court ruled that the law had "no secular legislative purpose."

Lower courts have since been the scene of protracted legal warfare as advocates of church-state separation have clashed with those who argue that the 1980 ruling does not bar all government-backed displays of the commandments.

"Given the amount of litigation surrounding this issue in recent years, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court would want to clarify often-conflicting rulings below," said Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Lower courts have issued more than two dozen rulings in varying circumstances, but until yesterday the Supreme Court had refused to step in, turning down six petitions for review of the matter. One involved the case of Roy S. Moore, who was forced from his position as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court last year after refusing a federal court order to remove a commandments monument from the state courthouse in Montgomery.

Now, however, the pressure for Supreme Court action appears to have become irresistible.

There are more cases in the court's pipeline. In addition to the Texas case, Van Orden v. Perry, No. 03-1500, and the Kentucky case, McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 03-1693, there are three pending cases on the display of the commandments in public schools.

Politically, public display of the Ten Commandments is an issue that energizes the liberal and conservative bases of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively.

Lawsuits to remove the commandments have often pitted the ACLU and its supporters against small-town governments backed by conservative religious legal groups. The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal advocacy group, says it is involved in 20 Ten Commandments cases in the lower courts, including one related to a monument to the commandments in Frederick.

Legally, the Supreme Court cases raise issues similar to those in the court's last high-profile brush with a church-state controversy: last term's challenge to the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which schoolchildren recite at the beginning of each day.

The court ducked the issue at the heart of that case -- whether "under God" impermissibly crossed the church-state line -- and upheld the pledge on technical grounds.

Just as California atheist Michael A. Newdow argued that "under God" is an unconstitutional state-sponsored religious affirmation, opponents of public displays of the Ten Commandments argue that they impermissibly put an official imprimatur on one particular religious belief.

Backers of displaying the commandments say it is not necessarily a governmental religious statement, but rather, in the right context, an acknowledgment of the role Judeo-Christian norms played in the development of Western civilization and American law.


CONTINUED    1 2    Next >

© 2004 The Washington Post Company