McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005)
Primary Holding
The display of the Ten Commandments in public courthouses violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if the primary purpose of the display is to promote a religious message, rather than a secular purpose. The evolution of the display and the intent behind it are critical factors in determining its constitutionality.
In the McCreary County v. ACLU case, two counties in Kentucky displayed the Ten Commandments in their courthouses, which led to a legal challenge. The Supreme Court ruled that if the main goal of displaying religious texts is to promote a religious message, it violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which separates church and state. This case is important for consumers because it reinforces the idea that government spaces should remain neutral regarding religion, protecting everyone's right to a secular government, and it is relevant when considering how public spaces display religious symbols or messages.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
McCreary County and Pulaski County, Kentucky, displayed gold-framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses, juxtaposed only with a citation to the Book of Exodus. The ACLU argued that the Counties had violated the Establishment Clause, so they changed the displays to include a statement that the Kentucky laws were based in part on the Ten Commandments. However, the lower court still ordered them to remove their displays. This counties responded with yet another display that presented the Ten Commandments among other documents that were labeled as the foundations of American law and government. The lower court simply extended the injunction to include this display.
Whether the display of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, considering the counties' purpose and the evolution of the displays.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
This decision should not be interpreted as a categorical ban on using religious text in government displays, but it is important to show neutrality to religion by including non-religious elements in the display. The counties worked around this rule by incorporating other historical documents with some religious connotations.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- March 2, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Souter
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
Consumer LostThe display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as it serves a valid secular purpose and does not convey an endorsement of religion to a reasonable observer.
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)
Consumer WonThe Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as it permits the government to accommodate religious practices without unlawfully fostering religion.
San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005)
Consumer LostFederal courts cannot create an exception to the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. §1738, for claims brought under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, thereby affirming that state court decisions on takings claims must be respected in federal court.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that the government's use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another for the purpose of economic development qualifies as a "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This decision allows for a broader interpretation of public use to include economic benefits to the community.