Interview: Greg Abbott, Texas AG on the Ten Commandments
On March 2nd, the Supreme Court will hear arguments defending the public display of Ten Commandments monuments in two consecutive sessions. The first of the two cases involves a Ten Commandments monument standing besides 16 other secular monuments in the Texas Capitol grounds. The second involves a Ten Commandments display inside a Kentucky courthouse.
In the Texas case, the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will defend the Ten Commandments from a challenge filed by a homeless man in 2002. The Justices will be reviewing a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the display is constitutional since it was more historical than religious in representation.
The following is the full text of an interview with Attorney General Greg Abbott.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Why is this such an important case?
Because of the fact that there are so many cases pending in the lower courts, this case is important. The Supreme Court has only once before written about the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments in Stone v. Grant 25 years ago, and that case was held without the benefit of oral arguments and briefings. Since that time, there has been countless lower court decisions in federal courts of appeals and state courts that have arrived at different conclusions about the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments. It is important for all government bodies to have clear guidance about how displays can be placed in a way that complies with the constitution.
How did you get involved in this case?
The case will be heard on March 2nd, on Wednesday. I personally got involved when I took over the state’s Attorney General Office. It is my office that represents the state of Texas whenever it is involved in litigations. We first represented the state at the district court and court of appeals level, and when I took over as Attorney General in 2002, the case was already pending in the 5th circuit court of appeals. I got involved in the briefing at that point, but now I’m taking the lead and making oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. This is a case that is very important to the people of the country and the state, and I believe the state’s top lawyers will do their best.
What are your prospects on winning the case? <.b>
I believe and am hopeful that the decision will be in favor of Texas and that it will provide clarity for government bodies across the nation to know exactly how it will go about displaying Ten Commandments monuments.
I served as a justice in Texas’ Supreme Court – the highest court – for about five years before I became Attorney General. I bring the background of the bench to this equation.
There are many other monuments on the same location as the Ten Commandments display. Have any of those other monuments been challenged?
There is a total of 17 monuments on the Texas capital grounds. It is recognized as a national historic landmark, and included in this status are the monuments. One of the 17 is the Ten Commandments display, and that’s the only one that has been challenged.
Also, it is important to note that this monument has been displayed for 40 years, and has never caused any kind of political divisiveness.
Tell us some of the arguments you will be making before the court.
The Supreme Court has written opinions over the past several decades on religious symbols, primarily involving the cross, nativity scene and menorah. Based upon those opinions, the primary thing the Supreme Court focuses on is what message the reasonable observer would believe the state is trying to send by having the display on the capitol grounds.
We contend that in the particular setting, the state is not endorsing religion since the Ten Commandment is placed in the context of a museum-like setting.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the context and setting in which the religious display is presented helps decide whether or not it will be constitutional or unconstitutional. There could be circumstances with a completely different set of facts and conditions. If the only item on display was the Ten Commandments or some other religious symbol highlighted in a prominent way, and if there was wording that the reasonable observer would see as the state’s endorsement of religion, the case would be difficult to argue.
What’s the difference between your case and that of Roy Moore’s?
The main difference is that the monument in Roy Moore’s case was placed in the setting mentioned above. The court in this case highlighted the fact that the Ten Commandments monument was not only the only thing in display, but that it was a huge five and a half ton display. Even more so than the monument itself, the avowed purpose for putting it up was religious.
What can Christians do to help the case?
Well, I’m also Christian – I’m a Catholic – and prayer always helps.
