Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
Primary Holding
The 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.
In the case of Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court decided that a monument with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds is allowed because it serves a historical purpose and doesn't promote religion. This matters because it helps define how government can display religious symbols without violating the separation of church and state. This case is relevant if you ever feel that a government display or action unfairly favors one religion over another, as it shows that some religious symbols can coexist in public spaces when they have a broader cultural or historical context.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
The state of Texas placed 17 monuments and 21 historical markers on the grounds of its state capitol building to commemorate certain aspects of Texan identity. They included a monolith of the Ten Commandments, which offended Van Orden when he walked past it to reach the Texas Supreme Court Library. He brought a claim against the state on the grounds that the monument violated the Establishment Clause.
Whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds.
The judgment is affirmed.
Historical depictions that have religious context will be acceptable under the First Amendment. For example, the painting of Moses in the Supreme Court is permissible because Moses is generally known as a lawmaker in addition to a religious figure.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- March 2, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005)
Consumer WonThe 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.
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.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
Consumer LostAn individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order, even when there is probable cause to believe it has been violated.
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.