No, the monument is not against the rules. It's okay because it’s more like a historical museum piece than the government pushing a specific religion. America has a long history of acknowledging religion, and the Ten Commandments are important to our history and laws, not just religion. Since it's one of many monuments and isn't in a school forcing kids to see it, people can just walk by and ignore it if they want.

No, the monument is fine. The government should be allowed to recognize God and religion in public life, as long as it's not forcing anyone to believe something. This is a normal part of our country's traditions.

No, the monument is fine because the Establishment Clause doesn't even apply here. That rule was originally meant to stop the federal government from creating a national church, not to stop states from putting up monuments. Besides, the rule only bans forcing people to be religious, and just seeing a monument you don't like isn't being forced to do anything.

No, it's okay, but it's a very close call. You have to use common sense and look at the whole picture instead of using a strict test. This monument was given by a community group for a good cause, and it's surrounded by historical statues. Most importantly, it sat there for 40 years and nobody complained, which shows it wasn't really causing a big problem or making people feel excluded. Taking it down now might cause more trouble than leaving it up.

Yes, this is totally against the rules. The government is supposed to stay neutral on religion, and this monument clearly picks a side. The statue's main message is 'I AM the LORD thy God,' which is a direct religious command. Putting that at the state capitol makes people who don't share that belief feel like outsiders, which the Constitution doesn't allow.

Yes, this is against the rules. I agree with Justice Souter's reasons for why this monument should be taken down.

Yes, this is a clear violation of the rules. A religious text on government property is only okay if the setting makes it clear it's for historical or educational purposes. This monument is all about religion—the text and the symbols on it are religious. The other monuments around it are too random to make it seem like part of a history lesson. The government is essentially posting a religious message and that's not its job.

Yes, it's fine for the Ten Commandments stone to be at the Texas State Capitol. The Court explained that the stone is part of a bunch of historical displays and doesn't mean the government is choosing a favorite religion. They also said that not everything religious has to be taken out of public places, and the important thing is that the display doesn't just promote one religion and has some history behind it.

Scalia agreed with the majority opinion because it matches how the Court currently looks at these types of cases. But he would prefer it if the Court said it was always okay for the government to favor religion in general, honor God, and show the Ten Commandments as long as they weren't trying to convert people.

Thomas agreed that the Ten Commandments monument is allowed. He said this case would be simple if the Court stopped using confusing rules and looked at what the Constitution originally meant. According to Thomas, the Constitution either wouldn't apply to states on this issue, or would only stop the government from actually forcing religious activity. The Ten Commandments monument doesn't force Van Orden to do anything, so it would be allowed.

Breyer agreed with the final decision, saying that in this close case, the Ten Commandments monument fits with the purposes of the First Amendment and is allowed. He said that in tricky cases like this, judges can't just use a simple test and have to use their best legal judgment. The way the monument is set up suggests the government wanted to send a moral message, and the fact that no one complained for 40 years shows most people see it as mostly non-religious.

Stevens disagreed, saying the monument's message is clearly religious and goes against the First Amendment. He argued that the First Amendment creates a strong presumption against putting religious symbols on government property. The monument has no non-religious purpose and sends the message that the government supports a specific religious code. Putting this religious text at the state capitol is unconstitutional.

O'Connor disagreed for basically the same reasons as Justice Souter. She also referred to her opinion in another Ten Commandments case, McCreary County v. ACLU, where she explained the purposes and principles behind the First Amendment's religion clauses.

Souter disagreed, arguing that the Ten Commandments monument violates the First Amendment because it's an obvious religious text being displayed by the government. Putting the monument at the Texas State Capitol doesn't change its religious nature or avoid the appearance that the government is endorsing its religious message. The majority's general statements about the role of religion in American life don't justify the monument under the Court's First Amendment cases.

—a four-justice plurality considering a challenge to a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas state capitol grounds concluded that "[w] hatever may be the fate of the Lemon test in the larger scheme of Establishment Clause jurisprudence"—again, a generation earlier the Rabun Court had applied Lemon essentially by default, as the only game in town—it was "not …

Nonetheless, despite broad disagreement over the Establishment Clause's meaning, Supreme Court justices over the years have typically agreed that government may not pick and choose religious winners and religious losers.

"[T] he Establishment Clause does not compel the government to purge from the public sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious."

In Van Orden, the Supreme Court considered a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol.

—upholding display of the Ten Commandments as one of 17 monuments on the 22-acre park surrounding the Texas State Capitol

—the Court held that the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause.

"Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause."

Plaintiffs respond that their claim is similar to religious display and prayer cases where courts have found (or at least apparently assumed) standing.

JUSTICE GORSUCH's "no standing" opinion is startling in view of the many religious-display cases this Court has resolved on the merits

In his plurality opinion finding no Establishment Clause violation, Chief Justice Rehnquist (joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) acknowledged that the test announced in Lemon occasionally has governed the analysis of Establishment Clause cases over the past twenty-five years, but noted that "the factors identified in Lemon serve as' no more than helpful …

No, the monument does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The display is a passive monument that has both religious and undeniable historical meaning, and its presence on the Capitol grounds is consistent with the nation's long tradition of acknowledging its religious heritage. The Lemon test is not useful for analyzing this type of passive display; instead, the analysis is driven by the nature of the monument and our Nation’s history. The Ten Commandments have played a role in the development of our legal system, and this monument is just one of many on the Capitol grounds representing the various strands of Texas's political and legal history. This context is far different from the coercive environment of a public school classroom, as was the case in Stone v. Graham, making the display here constitutionally permissible.

No, the monument does not violate the Establishment Clause. This conclusion is correct under current jurisprudence, but a better approach would recognize that the government is permitted to favor religion generally, honor God, and venerate the Ten Commandments in a nonproselytizing manner. Such acknowledgments are consistent with our nation's history and traditions and are not prohibited by the Constitution.

No, the monument does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause, as originally understood, prohibits actual legal coercion, such as mandatory church attendance or taxation to support a church, which is not present here. The petitioner is not compelled to do anything; he merely takes offense at seeing the monument, which does not constitute coercion. Furthermore, the Clause was originally understood as a limit on the federal government, not the states, and therefore should not be incorporated to apply to state actions like this one.

No, the monument does not violate the Establishment Clause in this specific borderline case. A determination cannot be made by a mechanical test but requires an exercise of legal judgment that considers the context and purposes of the Religion Clauses. Here, the monument's context suggests a primarily secular, moral, and historical message; it was donated by a civic group to combat juvenile delinquency and is situated among many other secular monuments. Crucially, its 40-year unchallenged history indicates it has not been a source of religious divisiveness, and removing it now could create the very conflict the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.

Yes, the monument violates the Establishment Clause. The monument's sole function is to display a sectarian religious message, constituting a government endorsement of the Judeo-Christian God that is inconsistent with the constitutional principle of religious neutrality. The text, beginning with 'I AM the LORD thy God,' is a divine command, not a historical artifact or a secular moral code. By displaying this message at the seat of government, the State sends a clear message of preference for one faith, making nonadherents feel like outsiders in the political community.

Yes, the monument violates the Establishment Clause. The reasoning provided in Justice Souter's dissent and in her own concurring opinion in the companion case of McCreary County correctly explains why the display is unconstitutional.

Yes, the monument violates the Establishment Clause. A governmental display of an obviously religious text is inconsistent with neutrality unless the context plausibly indicates a secular purpose. Here, the monument's presentation, which emphasizes the divine command 'I AM the LORD thy God' and includes other religious symbols, clearly conveys a religious message with the predominant purpose of urging its acceptance. The argument that it is part of a secular 'museum' fails because the scattered monuments on the Capitol grounds have no coherent theme to neutralize the religious nature of this specific display. The holding of Stone v. Graham, which invalidated posting the Ten Commandments in schools, is directly applicable and should not be limited to the school context.

Yes. The Supreme Court held that the display of the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the monument, being one among several historical displays, does not suggest government endorsement of religious doctrine. Rehnquist emphasized that the government is not required to remove all religious references from the public sphere and that simply having religious content does not violate the Establishment Clause. The plurality opinion also indicated that the Lemon test, while sometimes used in Establishment Clause cases, is not the definitive test and that historical context and the absence of religious favoritism are important considerations.

Scalia joined the majority opinion because it accurately reflects the Court's current Establishment Clause jurisprudence. However, he would prefer to adopt an Establishment Clause jurisprudence that is in accord with the Nation's past and present practices, under which there is nothing unconstitutional in a State favoring religion generally, honoring God through public prayer and acknowledgment, or venerating the Ten Commandments in a nonproselytizing manner.

Thomas agreed with the majority that the Ten Commandments monument does not violate the Establishment Clause. He argued that this case would be easy if the Court abandoned its inconsistent Establishment Clause guideposts and returned to the original meaning of the Clause. Under an originalist interpretation, the Establishment Clause would not apply to the states at all, or at most would prohibit actual legal coercion. The passive Ten Commandments monument would not violate the Establishment Clause under this understanding because it does not compel Van Orden to do anything.

Breyer concurred in the judgment, finding that in this borderline case, the Ten Commandments monument satisfies the purposes of the Establishment Clause and does not violate the First Amendment. He emphasized that in difficult borderline cases, there is no test-related substitute for the exercise of legal judgment. The monument's physical setting suggests that the State intended the display's moral message to predominate, and the monument's 40-year unchallenged history indicates that the public has viewed the monument as conveying a primarily secular message.

Stevens dissented, arguing that the monument's message is fundamentally religious and clearly violates the Establishment Clause. He contended that at the very least, the Establishment Clause has created a strong presumption against the display of religious symbols on public property. The monument serves no secular purpose and sends the message that the State endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God. Displaying this sectarian text at the state capitol is unconstitutional.

O'Connor dissented for essentially the same reasons given by Justice Souter. She also referenced her concurrence in McCreary County v. ACLU, in which she outlined the purposes and principles behind the Establishment Clause.

Souter dissented, contending that the Ten Commandments monument violates the Establishment Clause because it constitutes a governmental display of an obviously religious text. The monument's placement at the Texas State Capitol grounds does not mitigate its religious nature or avoid the appearance of the State's endorsement of its religious message. The plurality's reliance on generalities regarding the role of religion in American life fails to justify the monument's constitutionality under the Court's Establishment Clause precedents.

Van Orden v. Perry

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot