Establishment Clause and Religious Symbolism: VAN ORDEN v. PERRY

Establishment Clause and Religious Symbolism: VAN ORDEN v. PERRY

Introduction

VAN ORDEN v. PERRY, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. Petitioner Thomas Van Orden argued that the monument's presence violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by endorsing religion. The case raised critical questions about the separation of church and state, historical context, and the permissibility of passive religious displays on government property.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, affirmed the lower courts' decisions that the Ten Commandments monument did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court held that the monument's placement on the Capitol grounds was consistent with historical practices of acknowledging religion's role in American heritage. The Court emphasized the monument's passive display, its historical significance, and the absence of a coercive purpose, distinguishing it from prior cases that found similar displays unconstitutional within different contexts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several key precedents to support its decision:

  • School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963): Established that government-sponsored Bible reading in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.
  • LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971): Introduced the Lemon Test for assessing Establishment Clause cases, focusing on secular purpose, primary effect, and excessive entanglement with religion.
  • STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980): Held that a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms was unconstitutional, emphasizing the inappropriate religious purpose in an educational setting.
  • MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983): Upheld legislative prayer, recognizing its historical roots in American governmental practice.
  • McGOWAN v. MARYLAND, 366 U.S. 420 (1961): Upheld Sunday closing laws based on the historical significance of religious practices in shaping secular law.

These cases collectively informed the Court's assessment of the monument's constitutionality, particularly in differentiating between active and passive religious endorsements by the state.

Legal Reasoning

The plurality opinion underscored that the Establishment Clause must balance governmental neutrality with acknowledging religion's historical role. The Court determined that:

  • The monument served a primarily secular purpose by recognizing the historical influence of the Ten Commandments on American law and morality.
  • A reasonable observer, considering the monument's context among other historical markers, would not perceive it as an endorsement of religion.
  • The passive nature of the display, without coercive intent or interaction, differentiated it from unconstitutional displays in educational or active religious settings.

Moreover, the Court noted the longstanding tradition of religious acknowledgment in governmental contexts, such as legislative prayers and historical monuments, arguing that these practices maintain the necessary separation without hostility towards religion.

Impact

The decision in VAN ORDEN v. PERRY has significant implications for future Establishment Clause cases:

  • Broader Interpretation of Permissible Displays: The ruling provides a precedent for the acceptance of passive religious displays on government property, as long as they are contextualized within a broader historical or cultural narrative.
  • Historical Context is Crucial: Courts must carefully consider the historical and contextual factors surrounding a religious display to determine its compliance with the Establishment Clause.
  • Shift from Strict Tests: The decision indicates a move away from rigid tests like the Lemon Test towards a more flexible, judgment-based approach that weighs the purpose and effect of the display.

However, the judgment also highlighted ongoing debates within the Court regarding the application of neutrality principles and the adequacy of existing tests in Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts underpinning the Judgment may require clarification:

  • Establishment Clause: Part of the First Amendment, prohibiting the government from establishing an official religion or unduly favoring one religion over another.
  • Lemon Test: A three-pronged test from LEMON v. KURTZMAN used to assess whether a governmental action violates the Establishment Clause by evaluating its secular purpose, primary effect, and entanglement with religion.
  • Secular Purpose: A non-religious objective that justifies governmental actions even if those actions have incidental religious effects.
  • Primary Effect: The main impact of a governmental action, assessing whether it advances, inhibits, or neutralizes religion.
  • Excessive Entanglement: When the government's involvement with religion becomes too involved, leading to potential bias or preference.
  • Reasonable Observer: A hypothetical person used by courts to determine how an average person with common understanding would perceive a specific governmental action.

Conclusion

VAN ORDEN v. PERRY represents a pivotal moment in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, affirming that not all religious displays by the government amount to unconstitutional endorsement of religion. By emphasizing historical context, secular purpose, and the passive nature of the Ten Commandments monument, the Court delineated the boundaries of permissible religious acknowledgments on government property. This decision underscores the nuanced balance between maintaining the separation of church and state while recognizing the profound historical influence of religious principles in American governance. Future cases will undoubtedly continue to navigate these complex intersections, building upon the framework established by VAN ORDEN v. PERRY.

Case Details

Year: 2005
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

Ruth Bader GinsburgDavid Hackett SouterJohn Paul StevensAnthony McLeod KennedySandra Day O'ConnorStephen Gerald BreyerClarence ThomasAntonin ScaliaWilliam Hubbs Rehnquist

Attorney(S)

Erwin Chemerinsky argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Mark Rosenbaum and Paul Hoffman. Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Barry R. McBee, First Assistant Attorney General, Edward D. Burbach and Don R. Willett, Deputy Attorneys General, R. Ted Cruz, Solicitor General, Joel L. Thollander and Amy Warr, Assistant Solicitors General, and Paul Michael Winget-Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General. Acting Solicitor General Clement argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of respondents. 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. Briefs of amid curiae urging reversal were filed for American Atheists by Robert J. Bruno; for the American Humanist Association et al. by Elizabeth L. Hileman; for the American Jewish Congress et al. by Marc D. Stern and Jeffrey Sinensky; for Americans United for Separation of Church and State et al. by Ian Heath Gershengorn, William M. Hohengarten, Ayesha Khan, Richard B. Katskee, Elliot M. Mincberg, and Judith E. Schaeffer; for the Anti-Defamation League et al. by Jeffrey R. Babbin, Aaron S. Bayer, Kenneth D. Heath, Frederick M. Lawrence, Daniel S. Alter, and Steven M. Freeman; for the Baptist Joint Committee et al. by Douglas Laycock and K. Hollyn Hollman; for the Council for Secular Humanism by Edward Tabash; for the Freedom from Religion Foundation by James A. Friedman and James D. Peterson; and for the Hindu American Foundation et al. by Henry C. Dinger, Jeffrey A. Simes, Keith A. Zullow, Aseem V. Mehta, and Jessica Jamieson. Briefs of amid curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Indiana et al. by Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, and Rebecca Walker, Deputy Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Troy King of Alabama, Terry Goddard of Arizona, Mike Beebe of Arkansas, Charles J. Crist, Jr., of Florida, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Phill Kline of Kansas, Gregory D. Stumbo of Kentucky, Charles C. Foti, Jr., of Louisiana, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Jim Petro of Ohio, Gerald J. Pappert of Pennsylvania, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, Jerry W. Kilgore of Virginia, and Patrick J. Crank of Wyoming; 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 Family Association Center for Law Policy by Stephen M. Crampton, Brian Fahling, and Michael J. DePrimo; for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty by Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.; for the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence by John C. Eastman and Edwin Meese III; for the Eagle Forum Education Legal Defense Fund by Douglas G. Smith and Phyllis Schlafly; for the Ethics and Public Policy Center by Mark A. Perry; for the Foundation for Moral Law, Inc., by Benjamin D. DuPré and Gregory M. Jones; for the Fraternal Order of Eagles by Kelly Shackelford and George A. Miller; for the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs by Nathan Lewin, Alyza D. Lewin, Dennis Rapps, David Zwiebel, and Nathan J. Diament; for the Pacific Justice Institute by Peter D. Lepiscopo; for the Rutherford Institute by John W. Whitehead; and for Janet Napolitano et al. by Lew, L. Munsil. Briefs of amid curiae were filed for the Atheist Law Center et al. by Pamela L. Sumners and Larry Darby; for the Chester County Historic Preservation Network by Alfred W. Putnam, Jr.; for Faith and Action et al. by Bernard P. Reese, Jr.; for Focus on the Family et al. by Benjamin W. Bull and Jordan W. Lorence; for the Thomas More Law Center by Edward L. White III; and for Wallbuilders, Inc., by Barry C. Hodge.

Comments