The case ofMcCreary County v. ACLUis one of the most significant legal battles in recent American history involving the separation of church and state. At the heart of this case was the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings and the constitutionality of such displays under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The case provides insight into how the U.S. Supreme Court evaluates government actions that potentially promote religion, especially when it involves religious texts displayed on government property. This landmark decision continues to be referenced in debates regarding religious freedom and government neutrality in matters of faith.
Background of the Case
McCreary County, located in Kentucky, along with neighboring counties, had placed framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses and public schools. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kentucky challenged these displays in 2001, arguing that the presence of overtly religious documents in government buildings violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. According to the ACLU, these displays had a clear religious purpose and were intended to promote one particular religious viewpoint in a government setting.
The Legal Journey
The case began in the federal district court, which issued a preliminary injunction to have the displays removed. The counties revised the exhibits twice, adding historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta, but the courts remained unconvinced. The additions were seen as attempts to disguise the religious nature of the original display rather than neutral presentations of legal history. Eventually, the case made its way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 54 decision that the displays in McCreary County were unconstitutional. The majority opinion, delivered by Justice David Souter, concluded that the government had violated the Establishment Clause because the primary intent behind the display was religious, not secular.
Key Arguments from the Majority
- Religious Purpose: The Court found that the displays had a clear religious motivation and history, and the revisions made after the lawsuit were seen as attempts to mask this original intent.
- Lemon Test Application: The Court used the Lemon v. Kurtzman precedent, applying the ‘Lemon test’ to determine whether the display had a secular purpose, advanced religion, or created excessive government entanglement with religion.
- Historical Context: Justice Souter emphasized that the context and evolution of the display, rather than just the final version, were important in understanding its true purpose.
Dissenting Opinions
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy dissented. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, argued that the Ten Commandments were part of the nation’s historical foundation and could be displayed as such. He criticized the Court’s majority for what he saw as an overly strict separation of church and state, and for disregarding the religious heritage shared by many Americans.
Establishment Clause Interpretation
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is a cornerstone of American constitutional law and prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. In McCreary County v. ACLU, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that any government action must have a primarily secular purpose to pass constitutional muster.
The Lemon Test
The Lemon test, derived from the 1971 caseLemon v. Kurtzman, was a central part of the Court’s reasoning. This test includes three parts:
- The action must have a significant secular purpose.
- The action must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
- The action must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.
In McCreary County, the Court determined that the first prong the secular purpose was not satisfied due to the explicitly religious intent of the original display.
Impact of the Ruling
The decision in McCreary County v. ACLU had a substantial impact on how religious symbols and texts are treated in government settings across the United States. It clarified that the context and history of a display are just as important as its final appearance. Public officials must ensure that any religious or historically religious elements in government spaces serve a genuine secular purpose and are not efforts to promote specific religious beliefs.
Legal and Social Repercussions
- Many courthouses and public institutions re-evaluated their displays to ensure compliance with constitutional standards.
- The case set a precedent for how courts should evaluate the purpose behind governmental religious displays.
- It intensified debates between religious freedom advocates and those advocating for strict government neutrality in religious matters.
Related Cases
Interestingly, on the same day the Court decidedMcCreary County v. ACLU, it also ruled onVan Orden v. Perry, a case involving a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. In that case, the Court upheld the display, arguing that it was part of a broader historical exhibit and did not primarily endorse religion. The seemingly contradictory rulings showed how context and intent play a crucial role in Establishment Clause cases.
Comparison with Van Orden v. Perry
The contrast between the two rulings underlined the nuanced approach taken by the Court. While McCreary County’s actions were seen as religiously motivated from the outset, the Texas monument inVan Ordenwas viewed as historically significant and not overtly religious in its message. This distinction underscored the importance of both content and context.
Continuing Debate Over Religion in Public Life
The ruling did not end the discussion over religion in public spaces. Instead, it added new layers to the debate. Advocates for religious expression argue that the Ten Commandments and other religious references are integral to American history and legal tradition. On the other hand, civil liberties organizations continue to advocate for a secular government that does not endorse or appear to endorse any religion.
Future Implications
Although the composition of the Supreme Court has changed since 2005, the principles established in McCreary County v. ACLU still hold legal weight. As new cases arise that challenge the boundaries between church and state, McCreary remains a foundational example of how courts interpret religious displays under constitutional scrutiny.
McCreary County v. ACLU is a defining case in the ongoing debate over the Establishment Clause and the proper role of religion in government spaces. By examining the purpose, context, and history of religious displays, the Court set a clear standard that any appearance of government endorsement of religion must be scrutinized and justified under constitutional principles. The decision serves as a reminder that neutrality in government is essential to upholding the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, especially in a society that values both religious diversity and freedom of conscience.