American Civ. Liberties Union v. McCreary Cty, Ky.

Citations: 96 F. Supp. 2d 679; 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6598; 2000 WL 562165Docket: CIV.A. 99-507

Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky; May 5, 2000; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court addressed a First Amendment challenge regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in McCreary County, Kentucky, with the plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction while the defendants moved to dismiss the case. The court held a hearing on April 20, 2000, ultimately granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to failure to demonstrate "injuries in fact," referencing established case law that requires personal stakes in the matter. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had concrete injuries because they must enter the courthouse where the display is located, similar to precedent set in Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools, where a former student had standing due to potential unwelcome contact with a religious display. The court noted that the plaintiffs' need to conduct civic business in the courthouse imposed an unavoidable interaction with the display, satisfying the standing requirement. Additionally, the defendants' assertion that the ACLU lacked organizational standing was rejected, citing Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, which allows associations to represent their members’ interests even without direct injury to the organization itself.

An association can represent its members in legal action if it can demonstrate that they are experiencing immediate or threatened injuries due to the challenged action, which would be justiciable if the members had sued individually. As long as the nature of the claim does not require the individual participation of each injured party, the association can invoke the court's jurisdiction. The ACLU has members in McCreary County with standing similar to the named plaintiffs, and individual participation from ACLU members is not necessary for this lawsuit, granting the ACLU organizational standing.

The defendants claimed improper service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, arguing that the summons must be mailed by the court clerk per Kentucky law. However, federal rules allow service methods authorized by state law, and the plaintiffs' mailing of the summons is deemed effective despite being sent by the plaintiffs instead of the clerk. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

Regarding the preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without the injunction, that no substantial harm will come to others if granted, and that it serves the public interest. These factors guide judicial discretion but are not rigid requirements. The court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law, although not all four factors need to be specifically addressed if fewer are decisive. In First Amendment cases, the likelihood of success is often the key factor.

Recently, McCreary County officials installed a Ten Commandments display in the courthouse, following a fiscal court order. The display included at least one framed copy of the Ten Commandments and was not part of any broader educational exhibit. After the lawsuit was initiated, the defendants modified the display to include additional documents, which they conceded was an attempt to align with First Amendment standards and protect against legal action.

The display at the McCreary County courthouse includes several documents, prominently visible to the public, such as an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the national motto "In God We Trust," a page from the Congressional Record declaring 1983 as the Year of the Bible with the Ten Commandments, proclamations by Presidents Lincoln and Reagan related to the Bible, and the Mayflower Compact. Some documents are fully displayed while others are only excerpts highlighting references to God or the Bible.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the display of the Ten Commandments violates their First Amendment rights. Section 1983 allows for a federal cause of action against individuals acting under state law who deprive others of their federal rights. To establish a prima facie case under § 1983, plaintiffs must show that the action occurred under color of law and that it constituted a deprivation of a constitutional or federal statutory right. 

In this case, Jimmie Greene, acting as County Judge Executive, issued a Fiscal Court order on August 17, 1999, mandating the display of the Ten Commandments, which constitutes official county policy, thus establishing the required "color of law." The plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on both elements of their claim. First Amendment violations, such as those claimed here, can be addressed through a § 1983 claim, as the Establishment Clause prohibits governmental entities from endorsing religious beliefs or making religious adherence relevant to individuals’ rights in the political community.

Government actions challenged under the Establishment Clause are evaluated using the three-part Lemon test, which requires that the action serves a secular purpose, does not primarily advance or inhibit religion, and does not lead to excessive governmental entanglement with religion. Recent Supreme Court cases have shifted the focus towards an endorsement test, which considers whether the government action appears to endorse religion to a reasonable observer. This court will apply the endorsement test to assess the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display. The test examines both the actual purpose behind the government's action and its effect, necessitating that both aspects must not indicate an endorsement of religion. The government’s stated secular purpose must be genuine, not a pretext for advancing religion. In evaluating the Ten Commandments display, the court finds that its original form, consisting solely of the Commandments, lacks a secular purpose due to their inherently religious nature, which cannot be reconciled with a predominantly secular intent.

The primary purpose of posting the Ten Commandments is inherently religious, as established in Stone v. Graham. The Commandments address religious duties, such as worship and idolatry, rather than solely secular matters like moral conduct. Defendants claim the display aims to educate residents about American religious history and illustrate the nation's Christian heritage, but the display is limited to a single religious text without context, undermining its purported secular intent. The inclusion of additional documents after the lawsuit, although presented as a secular purpose, does not sufficiently alter the original display's intent. The court emphasizes that a genuine secular purpose cannot exist if religious purposes dominate, as clarified in Lynch. The historical context of the display and the selective choice of documents reinforce the view that it lacks a secular purpose, thereby violating the First Amendment. The court indicates it will also analyze the display's effect under the Establishment Clause, assessing whether a reasonable observer would interpret it as government endorsement of religion, akin to the reasonable-person standard in tort law.

The display in question predominantly conveys a governmental endorsement of religion, specifically Christianity, through its components. Key documents include a Congressional Record from 1983 proclaiming it the Year of the Bible, remarks by Representative Phillip M. Crane emphasizing the Bible and the Ten Commandments, excerpts from the Declaration of Independence and the Kentucky Constitution referencing God, President Lincoln's 1863 Proclamation of a Day of Prayer, President Reagan's 1983 proclamation honoring the Bible's influence, and the Mayflower Compact invoking God. The display’s cumulative effect leads a reasonable observer to conclude a clear endorsement of Christianity, as all documents refer to religion, often selectively edited to highlight religious aspects. The absence of contextual historical explanations further reinforces this perception. The defendants' defense, citing constitutional precedents involving references to God, fails because they selectively quoted documents, altering their meanings. Additionally, the established legal principles distinguishing ceremonial deism from religious endorsement do not apply, as the display lacks a secular context and the documents' selection is explicitly religious.

There is no established tradition of displaying the Ten Commandments in county courthouses, nor a secular justification for such a display. A reasonable observer would perceive the Ten Commandments as a governmental endorsement of religion, rather than a customary practice for solemnizing meetings or legitimizing currency. The court declines to adopt the defendants' argument that the display should be considered ceremonial deism, distinguishing this case from three cited precedents where displays were deemed constitutional. In *Books v. City of Elkhart*, the display was part of a broader collection of historical and cultural monuments, while in *Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp.*, the ruling has been questioned by the Tenth Circuit due to its outdated reasoning. In *Suhre v. Haywood County*, the court found the Ten Commandments to be part of a historical frieze that conveyed a broader message about law and ethics, thereby not endorsing religion. In contrast, the current display is isolated and explicitly communicates a governmental endorsement of religion, violating the First Amendment by suggesting that nonadherents are outsiders in the political community.

Government displays that endorse religion are unconstitutional and must be removed, as such endorsements undermine the nation's commitment to religious diversity. The display in question endorses Christianity specifically, which constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs demonstrate a high likelihood of success on their claim due to this endorsement. Furthermore, the infringement on First Amendment freedoms represents irreparable harm, even if for a brief period. 

If a preliminary injunction is granted, the defendants will need to remove the religious display, which would incur minimal cost, and they could recreate it later if successful in court. The defendants argue that the removal would infringe on their free speech rights; however, this argument is unfounded. The actions taken by Greene, as a government official, differ from those of private citizens and are subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause restricts government actions, not private expressions of faith. Consequently, the removal of the display does not violate the defendants' free speech rights, which are protected under the First Amendment in a context where private expression is free from government interference.

The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions that could compel residents to adhere to a particular religion or restrict religious practices, such as forcing conversion to Islam or penalizing church attendance. Such actions contradict the democratic principles of the U.S. Constitution. The protection of First Amendment rights and the rectification of constitutional violations are deemed in the public interest. As a result, the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is granted, while the defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. The court orders the immediate removal of the Ten Commandments display from the McCreary County Courthouse and prohibits any similar displays by county officials. The court finds that modifications to the original display do not address the constitutional concerns raised, as they are seen as ineffective attempts to comply with the Establishment Clause. The cases are interconnected, sharing similar complaints and legal arguments, and thus are treated collectively in court proceedings. The defendants' claim of mootness due to the display alteration is rejected, as the new display is viewed as a continuation of the original. The actions of the defendant, Jimmie Greene, are subject to First Amendment scrutiny since they were conducted in his official capacity as a government official. The endorsement test, relevant to this case, was established in prior Supreme Court rulings.

Defendants argue that the precedent set in Stone, which ruled against the posting of the Ten Commandments due to its religious purpose, is not applicable here because it involved legislative action and lacked full briefing. However, the court affirms that Stone remains valid law and establishes that the Ten Commandments are inherently religious, violating the Establishment Clause. The court finds the defendants' reference to Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States irrelevant, as that case dealt with statutory interpretation rather than First Amendment issues, and the cited language is merely dicta. The absence of a Hebrew version of the Ten Commandments and the selection of a translation favored by certain Christian sects further demonstrate a Christian bias in the display, which conflicts with the Establishment Clause by highlighting sectarian differences. The court also clarifies that allowing private citizens or religious organizations to post such displays does not exempt Greene and McCreary County from the Establishment Clause, as it would imply government endorsement of that religious message rather than maintaining a neutral stance.