County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter
492 U.S. 573, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government practice violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if, in its particular physical context, it has the effect of endorsing a religion. The government may not appear to take a position on questions of religious belief or make adherence to a religion relevant to a person's standing in the political community.
Facts:
- Allegheny County permitted the Holy Name Society, a Roman Catholic group, to display a creche on the Grand Staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse.
- The creche was a traditional nativity scene depicting the birth of Jesus, and included an angel with a banner that proclaimed 'Gloria in Excelsis Deo!' ('Glory to God in the Highest!').
- The creche was the sole element of the holiday display on the Grand Staircase, though the county framed it with poinsettia plants and small evergreen trees.
- A small plaque near the creche indicated that the display was donated by the Holy Name Society.
- The City of Pittsburgh erected a 45-foot Christmas tree under an arch at the entrance to the City-County Building.
- Next to the Christmas tree, the city placed an 18-foot Chanukah menorah, which was owned by the Chabad Jewish organization but stored, erected, and removed by the city.
- At the foot of the Christmas tree, the city placed a sign bearing the mayor's name and a 'Salute to Liberty,' stating that the festive lights were a reminder of the 'legacy of freedom.'
Procedural Posture:
- The Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and seven local residents sued Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
- The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent the display of the creche and the menorah, arguing they violated the Establishment Clause.
- The District Court denied the injunction, ruling that both displays were constitutional under the precedent of Lynch v. Donnelly.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that both the creche and the menorah had the impermissible effect of endorsing religion.
- Allegheny County, the City of Pittsburgh, and Chabad (as an intervenor), as petitioners, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the display of a creche on the Grand Staircase of a county courthouse and the separate display of a Chanukah menorah next to a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty outside a city-county building violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes, as to the creche; No, as to the menorah. A government display violates the Establishment Clause if its context has the effect of endorsing religion. The creche display is unconstitutional because it is a patently Christian message that stands alone in the 'main' and 'most beautiful' part of the courthouse, the seat of government. Nothing in its setting detracts from its religious message; the floral frame enhances it, and the ownership sign merely shows the government is endorsing a private religious message. The menorah display, however, is constitutional because its 'particular physical setting' does not constitute an endorsement. It stands next to a Christmas tree, a predominantly secular symbol, and a sign saluting liberty. This combined display creates an overall holiday setting that does not endorse Judaism or Christianity but conveys a secular message of pluralism and recognizes that Christmas and Chanukah are part of the same winter holiday season.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes, as to the creche; No, as to the menorah. The controlling inquiry is whether a government practice endorses religion, which occurs when it sends a message to nonadherents that they are 'outsiders' and to adherents that they are 'insiders.' The creche, standing alone in a core government building, conveys a clear message of government endorsement of Christianity. In contrast, the combined display of the menorah, the secular Christmas tree, and the sign saluting liberty conveys a message of pluralism and freedom of belief, not an endorsement of Judaism or religion in general.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Kennedy
No, as to the creche; No, as to the menorah. Both displays are constitutional. The 'endorsement test' reflects an unjustified hostility toward religion and should be rejected in favor of a test that forbids government from coercing religious participation or giving direct benefits to religion that tend to establish a state church. These passive, symbolic displays do not coerce or proselytize; they are a permissible accommodation of the religious heritage that is part of the holiday season, consistent with the precedent set in Lynch v. Donnelly.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan
Yes, as to the creche; Yes, as to the menorah. Both displays are unconstitutional. The creche is a clear endorsement of Christianity. The combined display of the menorah and Christmas tree does not create a secular message, but rather a dual endorsement of Christianity and Judaism. This dual favoritism violates the Establishment Clause's requirement of neutrality between religion and nonreligion and among different faiths.
Analysis:
This case solidified Justice O'Connor's 'endorsement test' as the prevailing standard for Establishment Clause challenges to religious displays. It established that the context of a display is paramount; a solitary religious symbol in a prominent government setting is likely an unconstitutional endorsement, whereas including the symbol in a broader, more diverse display with secular elements may be permissible. This 'context is key' analysis, sometimes derisively called the 'reindeer rule,' created a nuanced but fact-intensive framework that has guided and complicated subsequent holiday display litigation.
Unlock the full brief for County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter