Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; October 9, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
On April 21, 2000, Kentucky Governor Paul E. Patton enacted Senate Joint Resolution No. 57, which addresses the display of historic documents featuring the Ten Commandments. The resolution includes two main components: Section 2 permits public school teachers to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms as part of a historical display, while Section 8 mandates the relocation of a Ten Commandments monument previously displayed on Capitol grounds to a new permanent site, integrating it into a broader historical and cultural display aimed at highlighting the Biblical foundations of Kentucky's laws.
Plaintiffs, including various religious leaders and the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, filed a lawsuit against Armand Russ, the Commissioner of the Department for Facilities Management, seeking to prevent enforcement of Section 8. After a thorough hearing, the district court ruled Section 8 unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and issued a permanent injunction against its enforcement.
The Ten Commandments monument, over six feet tall and nearly four feet wide, was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971, who expressed concerns about the youth's understanding of these laws. The monument features the Ten Commandments inscription, Hebrew script, an American eagle, Stars of David, and a Chi-Rho symbol. The court clarified that the monument had not been displayed on Capitol grounds since approximately 1980 due to construction, contradicting the claims made in Section 8 of the Resolution.
The Resolution includes a preamble with seventeen "Whereas" clauses outlining the Senate's intent. It cites ten notable figures—Samuel Adams, Fisher Ames, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Abigail Adams, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter—who express their faith in the Bible and Christianity. Andrew Jackson’s quote emphasizes his reliance on the Bible for guidance and hope for salvation. George Washington is cited on the importance of religion and morality for political prosperity. Woodrow Wilson’s statement encourages personal engagement with the Bible as a source of truth and moral guidance. The Resolution also references a 1892 Supreme Court decision asserting the U.S. as a "Christian nation," along with various historical legislative quotes about God and the Bible. Additionally, it mentions the display of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court chambers as part of a frieze of historical lawgivers.
Section 8 of the Resolution mandates the relocation of the Ten Commandments monument to the Capitol grounds, specifically near Kentucky’s Floral Clock, which is notable for its size and weight, being one of the largest clocks globally. This area serves as a prominent feature visible from major access points to the Capitol. The monument will be integrated into a "historical and cultural display" that includes various markers and signs in the historical garden area surrounding the Floral Clock. Specific markers mentioned include memorials for events and individuals significant to Kentucky's history, such as a Civil War memorial, a "Welcome to Kentucky" plaque, and tributes to notable figures like Joe Cross Creason, Sr., and Governor Bert Combs. If relocated, the Ten Commandments monument will be the largest in the vicinity, apart from the Floral Clock, and both will be visible to motorists on the adjacent road. The document also outlines the legal standards for reviewing a district court's decisions regarding permanent injunctions, indicating that conclusions of law and constitutional facts are reviewed de novo, while subsidiary factual findings are subject to a clear error standard.
In the district court, the defendant contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing, a point not raised on appeal but still necessitating verification of the plaintiffs' standing to pursue the action. Standing is a jurisdictional requirement, underscoring the court's obligation to ensure jurisdiction exists. To satisfy Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) an actual or threatened injury, (2) a connection between the injury and the challenged action, and (3) a likelihood that the requested relief will address the injury. Case law supports that personal exposure to religious displays in public institutions can establish standing, as demonstrated in Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools, where a graduate's continued visits to his school provided the basis for standing regarding a religious portrait. Other cases similarly affirm that direct engagement with religious displays constitutes a valid injury for Establishment Clause challenges, negating the need for plaintiffs to avoid such displays to establish standing. Imposing a requirement for avoidance would unfairly burden individuals already asserting violations of their constitutional rights, as highlighted in Suhre v. Haywood County.
The complaint verified by individual plaintiffs asserts that Rabbi Adland, Reverend Bos, Reverend Greenlee, Reverend Schroerlucke, and Executive Director Vessels regularly engage in political advocacy at the State Capitol, where they face unwanted contact with the Ten Commandments monument. The court concludes that the plaintiffs meet the injury-in-fact requirement, as this injury results directly from the defendant's directive to erect the monument, and an injunction could remedy the situation. Consequently, the individual plaintiffs have standing to bring the action in district court.
Regarding the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the organization establishes standing to sue on behalf of its members if: (a) its members have individual standing, (b) the interests protected align with the organization's purpose, and (c) the lawsuit does not necessitate individual member participation. The ACLU demonstrates that its members, who also visit the Capitol, would confront the monument, furthering the organization's goal of maintaining the separation of church and state, a principle it actively defends. There is no requirement for the participation of all 1,800 Kentucky ACLU members. Thus, the ACLU has organizational standing to seek relief in the district court.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the government from establishing a religion or showing favoritism toward any religious beliefs. This clause prevents government actions from influencing a person's political standing based on their religious adherence. The constitutionality of government actions under the Establishment Clause is assessed using the Lemon test, which requires evaluation of three criteria: (1) whether the action has a secular purpose, (2) whether its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, and (3) whether it fosters excessive entanglement with religion. While there have been critiques of the Lemon test by individual Supreme Court justices, lower federal courts, including the one in question, remain obligated to apply it until the Supreme Court provides new directives. Additionally, recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has introduced the "endorsement" test, which examines whether a reasonable observer would perceive an action as government endorsement of religion. Various interpretations of the endorsement test exist, but it is primarily considered as a refinement of the second prong of the Lemon test, following precedents established in relevant cases.
The Lemon test's purpose prong evaluates whether a government action intends to endorse or oppose religion. A clear intention to promote religion exists when a law serves a religious purpose, either broadly or for specific beliefs. While a completely secular purpose is not mandatory, it must be more than a mere presence of a secular aim; the secular purpose should not be overshadowed by religious motives. Courts must differentiate between genuine secular purposes and those that are merely superficial. The Supreme Court, in Stone v. Graham, invalidated a Kentucky law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in schools, stating that the Ten Commandments are inherently religious and cannot be presented under the guise of a secular purpose. This ruling emphasized that while the Ten Commandments could be part of educational discussions in a broader context, the Commonwealth’s claim of displaying them to remind citizens of biblical foundations fails to meet the secular purpose requirement. Context is crucial when assessing a state’s asserted secular objective.
The legitimacy of the Commonwealth's stated secular purpose for displaying the Ten Commandments monument is assessed by examining the language of Section 8, the entire Resolution, especially the preamble, and the intended physical context of the monument. Section 8 claims that the monument is part of a cultural and historical display, yet the Resolution does not specify other components of this display and only revealed them during litigation, suggesting that these components are secondary to the monument and indicating a predominantly religious purpose. Furthermore, Section 8 emphasizes the Ten Commandments' influence on Commonwealth law, with Section 7 explicitly stating that they are viewed as the "precedent legal code." This focus on the Ten Commandments contrasts with other historical influences on law, such as those represented in the Supreme Court's frieze. While the Commonwealth is not required to recognize every historical legal influence, its emphasis solely on the "Biblical foundations" raises concerns about religious liberty, as it adopts a singular religious perspective while excluding other religious and secular influences.
The Resolution intended for the Ten Commandments monument includes seventeen introductory "Whereas" clauses, ten of which contain quotes from notable Americans that highlight the significance of religion, Christianity, and the Bible, thereby conveying a clear religious meaning. The defendant argues these preamble clauses serve to illustrate the influence of the Bible and religious thought on American law and public policy, claiming this reflects a secular objective. However, the court finds this argument unconvincing, noting that the defendant introduced this secular rationale only in its reply brief, suggesting an attempt to evade Establishment Clause scrutiny rather than a genuine secular purpose.
While the defendant has indicated that the Ten Commandments will be displayed alongside seven other secular markers, the relative prominence of the Ten Commandments monument raises concerns about its primary religious focus. The court highlights that the inclusion of secular texts does not inherently establish a secular purpose for the monument's erection. It cites several factors undermining the Commonwealth's claim of a secular intent: the Supreme Court's recognition of the religious nature of the Ten Commandments, the late clarification of the other display components, the predominant focus on the Ten Commandments in law, the religious tone of the preamble, and the monument's significant size compared to other markers. Consequently, the court concludes that the Commonwealth has failed to demonstrate a secular purpose for erecting the Ten Commandments monument in the Capitol grounds, referencing previous case law that similarly rejected claims of secular intent in related contexts.
State and local governments face challenges when considering the display of monuments or symbols with religious components, as such displays may lead to legal disputes regarding compliance with the Establishment Clause. Assessing these displays is often complicated and context-specific, with narrow distinctions between constitutional and unconstitutional displays. Courts typically afford some deference to governments' stated secular purposes but must scrutinize the actual intent behind the displays. In this case, the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate a careful consideration of constitutional standards, having previously litigated a similar issue where a secular purpose was deemed insufficient. The Commonwealth's Resolution did not adequately address the concerns raised in prior rulings, focusing instead on a vague "cultural and historical display" without clarity on its components. The court found that Kentucky's intent in displaying the Ten Commandments was primarily religious. Furthermore, even if the Commonwealth's stated purpose were disregarded, the display was still found to endorse religion impermissibly. The evaluation of whether a display violates the Establishment Clause involves considering the perceived endorsement of religion by an objective observer familiar with the relevant context, including the text and legislative history of the enactment. The analysis emphasizes the need to consider both the content of the display and its presentation context, rejecting any attempts by the state to appear neutral while ignoring the implications of its actions.
In Lynch, the Supreme Court held that a city's holiday display, which included a Christmas creche among various secular decorations, did not violate the Establishment Clause. Justice O’Connor, in her concurring opinion, acknowledged the creche's religious significance but argued that, within the broader context of the display, it did not endorse religion, instead celebrating a public holiday with secular elements. Five years later, in Allegheny, the Court faced a similar challenge with a Christmas creche at a courthouse and a Chanukah menorah at a city-county building. The majority, led by Justice Blackmun, found the creche display unconstitutional, asserting that it conveyed a clear religious message without any mitigating context. The presence of secular decorations nearby did not lessen the endorsement effect of the creche, and the surrounding floral display further highlighted its religious message. In contrast, the menorah was deemed constitutionally permissible by the Court.
The Court emphasized that the location of the creche at the county courthouse, specifically on the grand staircase, signals government endorsement of its Christian message. It argued that no reasonable observer could think the creche's placement lacked government support. Justice O’Connor cautioned that religious displays in core government areas risk linking religion to political status, while Justice Blackmun viewed the menorah's message as both secular and religious, suggesting the Christmas tree dominated the display and mitigated any dual endorsement of religion. He noted that a sign promoting liberty further lessened this risk. Although disagreeing with Blackmun's view on the menorah, O’Connor concluded it did not violate the Establishment Clause.
The Ten Commandments monument's planned placement at the Kentucky State Capitol similarly implies government endorsement, as its central location suggests official support. The prominent design of the monument, particularly the phrase "I AM the LORD thy God," reinforces its religious message, indicating that the display amplifies the endorsement associated with its governmental placement. The Court's inquiry focuses on whether the context of this display mitigates its religious endorsement.
The monument in question features two Stars of David and the Chi Rho symbol, which raises concerns about its religious endorsement, particularly in light of the prominent phrase "I AM the LORD thy God." The presence of these religious symbols, alongside revered secular symbols like the American flag and the Ten Commandments, suggests an inappropriate linkage between government and religion. The inclusion of an American eagle holding national colors further enhances the perception of government endorsement of religion. The fact that the Eagles service organization donated the monument does not diminish its religious significance; rather, a reasonable observer would interpret the donation as having a religious intent aimed at teaching the laws of God.
The Ten Commandments monument physically dominates the Capitol garden area, overshadowing other memorials to veterans and public servants. This contrasts with a previous Supreme Court case where a menorah was part of a display dominated by a secular Christmas tree. In this instance, the Ten Commandments serve as the predominant element, likely leading observers to view its religious message as the primary focus. The Commonwealth's argument that the Floral Clock mitigates the monument's religious message is undermined by the lack of acknowledgment that the Floral Clock is part of the identified cultural and historical display.
The defendant asserts that the Floral Clock will overshadow the monument and resolution, similar to how the Supreme Court viewed Christmas decorations in the Allegheny County Courthouse. The Court ruled that such decorations could not diminish the endorsement effect of a creche, as it was a distinct display. The defendant argues that, like the creche, the Floral Clock does not effectively reduce the perception of endorsement of the Ten Commandments monument, which is the most prominent feature in the display. The Floral Clock lacks a clear cultural or historical message and, unlike the Christmas tree in Allegheny that conveyed a secular holiday message, it may only serve to highlight the religious nature of the Ten Commandments monument.
Furthermore, the display lacks a cohesive theme as emphasized in previous cases, such as City of Clawson, where no unifying historical or cultural significance is evident across the seven markers present. These markers commemorate various individuals and events, most of which do not connect to a broader theme, making it difficult for a reasonable observer to relate them to the Ten Commandments monument. Consequently, without a unifying context, observers are likely to focus on the Ten Commandments monument and its religious implications.
The Ten Commandments convey a religious message that cannot be mitigated by claims of non-religious intent. The Commonwealth's argument that disclaimers included in the Resolution offset the religious nature of the display is deemed ineffective. Notably, neither Section 8 nor the preamble of the Resolution contains a clear disclaimer stating that the display is not intended to promote religion. Instead, Section 8 offers a vague secular purpose statement, which may not sufficiently dilute the religious endorsement. The placement of this statement at the end of the Resolution requires viewers to read the fine print, where they first encounter affirmations like “The Bible is true” before any disclaimers. This arrangement emphasizes the religious nature of the display rather than downplaying it.
Given that the monument is inherently religious, located on State Capitol grounds, and the format accentuates its religious directives, it is concluded that the display will impermissibly endorse religion. The combination of these factors, including the monument's prominence and the Resolution amplifying its religious message, suggests that non-adherents may feel marginalized, while adherents are made to feel favored within the political community.
The court has declared Section 8 of Kentucky Senate Resolution No. 57 unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and has permanently enjoined the defendant from complying with this provision. This ruling does not imply that Kentucky is forbidden from displaying the Ten Commandments or this specific monument; rather, it acknowledges that such displays can be constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, as indicated by Supreme Court precedents. The plaintiffs, while not seeking an outright ban on the Ten Commandments displays, proposed alternatives that emphasize the historical influences on law from both secular and religious sources.
The decision affirms the district court's stance and references a similar case from the Seventh Circuit, highlighting the origins of the nationwide Ten Commandments monument donations by E.J. Ruegmer, a juvenile court judge who believed the commandments could serve as a moral guide against juvenile crime. The defendant's argument focused on Section 2 of the Resolution, which claims a secular purpose for displaying the Ten Commandments, but the court's evaluation prioritizes the intent behind the challenged Section 8. The court expresses concern about relying on post-enactment statements from legislators, particularly those that might undermine an asserted secular purpose, referencing a comment by State Senator Albert Robinson. The court also indicates it does not consider recent district court challenges to Ten Commandments displays in its analysis.
Kentucky Senate's attempts to display the Ten Commandments lack sufficient evidence to establish a connection with broader statewide campaigns or trends. Several court cases, including American Civil Liberties Union v. Grayson County and American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky v. McCreary County, resulted in injunctions against such displays in courthouses and public schools, asserting their unconstitutionality. Plaintiffs argue that the Ten Commandments monument reflects a Protestant version; however, historical context indicates it was created with input from multiple faiths, including Roman Catholic and Jewish perspectives. Despite this dispute, it does not impact the court's conclusion. The endorsement of both Judaism and Christianity is deemed constitutionally problematic, similar to endorsing only Christianity. Consequently, the court finds that Section 8 lacks a legitimate secular purpose and improperly endorses religion, without needing to address potential entanglement issues between the Commonwealth and religion.
