Affirming the Primacy of Secular Purpose in Establishment Clause Analysis: McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky

Affirming the Primacy of Secular Purpose in Establishment Clause Analysis: McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky

Introduction

McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky et al., 545 U.S. 844 (2005), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court addressing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in public courthouses. The case emerged when McCreary County and Pulaski County in Kentucky posted large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. Respondents, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), challenged these displays, arguing that they violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by endorsing a particular religious viewpoint.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion delivered by Justice Souter, affirmed the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that the counties’ displays of the Ten Commandments violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The central reasoning was that the purpose behind the displays was predominantly religious, lacking a genuine secular objective. The Court emphasized that governmental actions must maintain neutrality between religion and non-religion, and any overt endorsement of religious principles breaches this constitutional mandate.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court's decision heavily relied on prior Supreme Court cases that interpret the Establishment Clause. Key among these were:

  • LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971): Established the "Lemon Test" to evaluate potential Establishment Clause violations based on secular purpose, primary effect, and excessive entanglement.
  • STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980): Dealt with the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools, emphasizing that religious symbols in isolation lack a secular purpose.
  • WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985): Reinforced the importance of secular legislative purpose in Establishment Clause analysis.
  • Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000): Highlighted that diversity of beliefs necessitates governmental neutrality.

These precedents underscored the necessity for government actions to have a genuine secular purpose and not to endorse or promote specific religious doctrines.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the Lemon Test, focusing primarily on the secular legislative purpose. It evaluated the counties' intent behind the displays:

  • Purpose Analysis: The Court examined the counties' resolutions and subsequent actions, determining that the primary motive was to endorse religious principles.
  • Section Evolution: The counties had altered their displays multiple times, attempting to frame the Commandments within a broader historical and legal context. However, the Court found these modifications insufficient to mask the underlying religious intent.
  • Contextual Evaluation: By integrating the Commandments with other documents that also contained religious references, the Court concluded that there was no meaningful secular purpose behind the displays.

The reliance on historical documents juxtaposed with the Ten Commandments did not satisfy the requirement for a secular purpose, as the common element remained religious references.

Impact

The decision reinforces the strict scrutiny applied to government displays of religious symbols, particularly when there is an apparent intent to endorse specific religious beliefs. Future cases involving religious displays in public spaces will likely reference this ruling to assess the secular purpose and neutrality of governmental actions. This affirmation upholds the separation of church and state, ensuring that public institutions do not favor or discriminate against religious doctrines.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment and prohibits the government from establishing an official religion, favoring one religion over another, or unduly involving itself in religious matters.

Lemon Test

Established in LEMON v. KURTZMAN, this three-pronged test evaluates:

  1. A secular legislative purpose.
  2. The primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion.
  3. If excessive government entanglement with religion exists.
For a government action to comply with the Establishment Clause, it must pass all three prongs.

Secular Purpose

A secular purpose refers to a non-religious objective. In the context of the Establishment Clause, government actions must primarily aim to serve a secular goal, without advancing religious doctrines.

Conclusion

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky serves as a pivotal affirmation of the Establishment Clause's protections against governmental endorsement of religion. By reiterating the necessity for a genuine secular purpose in public displays, the Court underscores the importance of maintaining religious neutrality. This decision not only aligns with established precedents but also fortifies the constitutional boundary separating church and state, ensuring that public institutions remain inclusive and respect the diverse beliefs of all citizens.

Case Details

Year: 2005
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

David Hackett SouterClarence ThomasAnthony McLeod KennedyAntonin ScaliaSandra Day O'Connor

Attorney(S)

Mathew D. Staver argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Erik W. Stanley, Rena M. Lindevaldsen, Bruce W. Green, and Mary E. McAlister. Acting Solicitor General Clement argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Katsas, Patricia A. Millett, Robert M. Loeb, and Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr. David A. Friedman argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Lili R. Lutgens and Steven R. Shapiro. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Alabama et al. by Troy King, Attorney General of Alabama, Kevin C. Newsom, Solicitor General, and Charles B. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Charles J. Crist, Jr., of Florida, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Steve Carter of Indiana, Phill Kline of Kansas, Gregory D. Stumbo of Kentucky, Charles C. Foti, Jr., of Louisiana, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Jim Petro of Ohio, Gerald J. Pappert of Pennsylvania, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Greg Abbott of Texas, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, Jerry W. Kilgore of Virginia, and Patrick J. Crank of Wyoming; for the State of Minnesota et al. by Mike Hatch, Attorney General of Minnesota, and John S. Garry, Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Patricia A. Madrid of New Mexico, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, and Peggy A. Lautenschlager of Wisconsin; for the American Center for Law and Justice by Jay Alan Sekulow, Stuart J. Roth, Francis J. Manion, and Walter M. Weber; for the American Legion by Kelly Shackelford and Philip B. Onderdonk, Jr.; for the American Liberties Institute et al. by Frederick H. Nelson; for the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs et al. by Steven C. Seeger; for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty by Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.; for the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund et al. by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson; for the Eagle Forum Education Legal Defense Fund by Douglas G. Smith and Phyllis Schlafly; for Faith and Action et al. by Bernard P. Reese, Jr.; for the Family Research Council, Inc., et al. by Robert P. George; for the Foundation for Moral Law, Inc., by Benjamin D. DuPré and Gregory M. Jones; for Judicial Watch, Inc., by Paul J. Orfanedes and Meredith L. Cavallo; for the Pacific Justice Institute by Peter D. Lepiscopo; for the Rutherford Institute by John W. Whitehead; for the Thomas More Law Center by Edward L. White III; and for Wallbuilders, Inc., by Barry C. Hodge. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for American Atheists by Robert J. Bruno; for the American Humanist Association et al. by Elizabeth L. Hileman; for Americans United for Separation of Church and State et al. by William M. Hohengarten, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Ayesha Khan, Richard B. Katskee, and Judith E. Schaeffer; for the Anti-Defamation League et al. by Jeffrey R. Bobbin, Aaron S. Bayer, Kenneth D. Heath, Frederick M. Lawrence, Daniel S. Alter, and Steven M. Freeman; for the Atheist Law Center et al. by Pamela L. Sumners and Larry Darby; for the Baptist Joint Committee et al. by Douglas Laycock, Jeffrey P. Sinensky, K. Hollyn Hollman, and Marc D. Stern; for the Council for Secular Humanism et al. by Ronald A. Lindsay; for the Freedom from Religion Foundation by James A. Friedman and James D. Peterson; and for Legal Historians and Law Scholars by Steven K. Green. Julie Underwood filed a brief of amici curiae for the National School Boards Association et al.

Comments