Lynch v. Donnelly

Supreme Court of United States
465 U.S. 668 (1984)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A municipality's inclusion of a religious symbol, such as a nativity scene, in a larger seasonal holiday display does not violate the Establishment Clause if the display, taken in context, has a legitimate secular purpose and neither has the primary effect of advancing religion nor creates excessive government entanglement with religion.

Facts:

The city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, annually erected a Christmas display in a park located in the heart of its downtown shopping district.
The display was created in cooperation with the local merchants' association.
The display included numerous secular figures and decorations, such as a Santa Claus house, reindeer pulling a sleigh, candy-striped poles, a Christmas tree, carolers, and a large banner reading "SEASONS GREETINGS."
Among the secular decorations, the display also included a créche, or nativity scene, which depicted the Infant Jesus, Mary, Joseph, angels, shepherds, kings, and animals.
The créche had been part of the city's annual display for 40 or more years.
The city of Pawtucket owned all components of the display, including the créche.

Procedural Posture:

Pawtucket residents and the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Pawtucket in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the city's inclusion of the créche violated the Establishment Clause and an injunction against its continued inclusion.
The District Court (a federal trial court) held for the plaintiffs, finding that the display violated all three prongs of the Lemon test, and permanently enjoined the city from including the créche.
The city of Pawtucket, as appellant, appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the District Court's judgment.
The United States Supreme Court granted the city's petition for a writ of certiorari.

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 a municipality's inclusion of a créche (nativity scene) in its annual Christmas display, which also includes various secular symbols, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

No, the inclusion of the créche does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause does not mandate a complete separation of church and state but rather affirmatively mandates accommodation of religion. Applying the three-part Lemon test, the Court found that: (1) The city had a secular purpose for the display, which was to celebrate a national holiday and depict its historical origins, not to endorse a particular religious message. (2) The primary effect of the display did not advance religion; any benefit to Christianity was 'indirect, remote, and incidental' when the créche is viewed in the context of the overall secular holiday display. (3) There was no excessive entanglement, as there was minimal administrative contact with religious authorities and the political divisiveness engendered by the lawsuit itself cannot be used to prove entanglement.

Concurring - Justice O'Connor

No, the display is constitutional. The proper inquiry under the Establishment Clause should be whether the government action constitutes an endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, while an accompanying message is sent to adherents that they are insiders. In this case, Pawtucket's display did not intend to, nor did it have the effect of, communicating a message of government endorsement of Christianity. The overall holiday setting, with its strong secular components and traditions, negates any message of endorsement that the créche might otherwise convey, much like a religious painting in a museum.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes, Pawtucket's inclusion of the créche in its Christmas display is unconstitutional. A strict application of the Lemon test reveals that the display fails all three prongs. First, the city's secular purposes of promoting holiday spirit and retail sales could have been fully achieved without the distinctively sectarian créche, indicating the true purpose was religious. Second, the primary effect was to place the government's imprimatur of approval on Christian beliefs, conveying to non-Christians that their views are not worthy of similar public recognition. Third, it poses a significant threat of fostering excessive entanglement through political divisiveness along religious lines.

Dissenting - Justice Blackmun

Yes, the presence of the créche violates the First Amendment. The majority's decision not only makes light of precedent but also does an injustice to the créche itself by trivializing its sacred religious meaning. By treating the créche as a mere 'traditional' symbol devoid of religious significance and useful for commercial purposes, the Court's resolution is a misuse of a sacred symbol and a Pyrrhic victory for the city.

Analysis:

This decision established the 'context is key' approach for Establishment Clause challenges to religious displays on public property, signaling a shift toward a more accommodationist view of the Clause. The Court's reasoning, which focused on the overall secular nature of the Pawtucket display, created what critics later called the 'reindeer rule'—that a religious symbol could be permissible if surrounded by enough secular ones. More significantly, Justice O'Connor's influential concurrence introduced the 'endorsement test,' which reframed the purpose and effect prongs of the Lemon test and became a central analytical tool in subsequent Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"