Two Ten Commandments Cases Head to the Supreme Court
When the two cases are presented, it will be the first time the Supreme Court has ever heard oral arguments on the Ten Commandments.
Two crucial cases involving the constitutionality of pubicly displaying Ten Commandment monuments will be heard at the nation’s highest court for the first time in over two decades.
On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court, whose own building boasts four artworks showing the sacred tablets, will hear arguments regarding the crucial first-amendment right cases that could very well determine the outcome of dozens of pending lower court cases involving the public display of religious symbols, and future of the nation’s near 5,000 Ten Commandment monuments.
The cases involve a large granite monument on the Texas Capitol grounds and a wall posting in a Kentucky courthouse. Both cases will be presented on the same day, but will be heard separately and argued separately.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
“The two cases will be heard back to back. The Texas case will be heard from 10a.m. to 11a.m and the Kentucky case will be heard from 11a.m to 12p.m,” explained Mathew Staver, senior counsel of the Liberty Counsel, who is arguing in favor of the monuments in the Kentucky case. “They were scheduled on the same day, but they will be argued separately and will have two separate opinions.”
The Texas case involves a large granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. The monument, which had been on display for over 40 years, is part of a group of 17 religious and secular monuments located on the twenty-two acre site.
The case took form in 2002 when a homeless atheist man named Thomas Van Orden passed by the monument, which sits next to the American Flag, American Eagle, and other religious symbols subscribed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and charged it of being an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The federal district court rejected his argument, ruling the state’s reasons for placing the monument were clearly secular. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit also upheld the decision in 2003, and Van Orden appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
In the upcoming case, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will personally appear before the Justices to stand on behalf of the Ten Commandments and the State of Texas.
“That monument has been on display for 40 years and never caused any kind of political divisiveness,” Abbott explained to the Christian Post. “This is a case that is very important to the people of this country and the state, and I believe and hope the decision will firstly be in favor of Texas and secondly provide clarity for government bodies across the nation to know exactly how to go about displaying the Ten Commandment monuments.”
According to Abbott, the Texas Capitol grounds have already been recognized as a national historic landmark.
“The Capitol grounds is recognized as a historic landmark, and the seventeen monuments are included in that status,” said Abbott. “Of the seventeen, this is the only one that has been challenged.”
In addition, Abbott explained that the setting of the Texas case is more like that of a museum, in which the religious display is part of a larger secular framework.
“The Supreme court has written opinions over the past several decades involving the public display of religious symbols primarily involving the cross, nativity scenes and the menorah. Based upon those opinions, the primary things the Supreme Court focuses on is what message the reasonable observer would believe the state is trying to send by having this monument on the capitol ground,” said Abbott. “We contend this monument is recognizing the role the Ten Commandment has played in the development of our legal and judicial bodies in a context of a museum-like setting.
“We understand that in this context, the state is not endorsing religion in general or in any particular way.”
Ultimately, Abbott said the Texas ruling is especially crucial because of the implications this case holds for the countless lower court decisions that have been made under similar situations over the years.
“Because the fact that there are so many cases going on in the lower court, this case is important. The Supreme Court only once before written about the constitutionally of the Ten Commandments in Stone v. Grant 25 years ago, and this case was held without the benefit of oral arguments and briefings,” said Abbott. “Since that time, there have been countless lower court decisions in at the federal court of appeals and the state courts with different conclusions about the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments.
“It is important for all governmental bodies to have clear guidance about how religious displays can be presented in a way that complies with the constitution.”
The second case, McCreary County v. ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) of Kentucky, involves a lawsuit seeking the removal of Ten Commandments displays at courthouses in Kentucky. The displays include the Ten Commandments along with other historical documents that played a large role in the development of American law.
According to Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver, who has been preparing for the High Court case for over two months, the Texas and Kentucky cases are similar in many ways but differ greatly in terms of context and range of influence.
“Basically, these two cases are different and are handled differently. In Texas, you have a large granite monument on the outside of the courtroom, and in Kentucky, you have a framed display that is hanging inside,” said Staver.
“Both these cases will determine the future constitutionality of all similar displays. However, our case is somewhat different than theirs,” Staver explained to the Christian Post on Monday. “Our case involves both the Ten Commandments issue and the future of church state matters.
“So these two cases differ at least on the church-state acknowledgement matters, such as religious displays and the pledge of allegiance,” he continued. “This is a blockbuster church case. No question about it.”
Under Supreme Court doctrine, all religious and sacred displays must have a “secular purpose” for being placed on public grounds. Under the test, the court outlawed Ten Commandment postings in public schools in 1980. When the two cases are presented to the court, it will be the first time the Supreme Court has ever heard oral arguments on the Ten Commandments.
According to Staver, Christians can do their part by praying for him and the justices as they approach the final week before the arguments are heard.
“In this last week, Christians can pray for me so my arguments are clear. They can also pray for the justices, the final preparation and the final decision, which is expected in June,” said Staver.
Attorney General Abbott agreed.
“I’m a Christian also -- I’m Catholic,” said Abbott. “And prayer always helps.”
