You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, Ellen Doyle, Michael Antol, Reverend Wendy L. Colby, Howard Elbling, Hilary Spatz Levine, Max A. Levine and Malik Tunador v. County of Allegheny, a Political Subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the City of Pittsburgh, a Political Subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Chabad, Intervenor. Appeal of American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, Ellen Doyle, Michael Antol, Reverend Wendy L. Colby, Howard Elbling, Hilary Spatz Levine, Max A. Levine, No. 87-3395. Appeal of Malik Tunador, No. 87-3436

Citation: 842 F.2d 655Docket: 87-3395

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; April 19, 1988; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of religious displays on public property, filed by plaintiffs including the ACLU against Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh. The plaintiffs argued that the nativity scene at the Allegheny County Courthouse and the menorah at the City-County Building violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court, influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in Lynch v. Donnelly, found that these displays were not endorsements of religion but rather part of a broader celebration of the holiday season. The court applied the Lemon test, focusing on whether the displays had a secular purpose, whether their primary effect advanced or inhibited religion, and whether they resulted in excessive government entanglement with religion. The court concluded that the displays did not violate the Establishment Clause, as they were intended to promote a message of unity rather than endorse a particular religious belief. The decision was appealed, with the appellate court emphasizing that the displays' location in government buildings suggested an endorsement of religion, thus violating the Lemon test. Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the district court's decision, highlighting that the displays were unconstitutional endorsements of religion. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address these issues.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of the Lemon Test

Application: The court assessed the displays under the Lemon test to determine if they endorsed religion.

Reasoning: Application of these factors reveals that the district judge's conclusion regarding the compliance of both a creche and a menorah with the second prong of the Lemon test was erroneous.

Establishment Clause and Religious Displays

Application: The court evaluated whether the display of religious symbols, such as a creche and menorah, on public property violates the Establishment Clause.

Reasoning: The judge deemed the displays as minimal in the context of the First Amendment, concluding that they posed no risk of establishing a religion and were intended to celebrate the holiday season without intending to offend anyone.

Governmental Endorsement of Religion

Application: The court analyzed whether the location and presentation of religious symbols on public property implied government endorsement of specific religions.

Reasoning: The presence of a creche, Christmas tree, and a menorah collectively represents a single holiday display from the perspective of the average citizen, commemorating the holiday season.

Judicial Interpretation of Lynch v. Donnelly

Application: The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in Lynch to evaluate whether the displays conveyed endorsement of religion.

Reasoning: The district judge expressed that the case was influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in Lynch v. Donnelly, asserting that the displays of a creche and a menorah did not signify governmental endorsement of religion.

Secular Purpose and Holiday Displays

Application: The court considered whether the inclusion of secular elements in the displays negated any religious endorsement.

Reasoning: Justice O’Connor's concurrence aligns with the majority opinion, affirming that the creche, despite its religious connotations, complies with Establishment Clause requirements.