Facts of the Case

Thomas Van Orden, a Texas resident, challenged the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument that was located on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol in Austin. The monument, which had been donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961, was one of several monuments on the Capitol grounds. Van Orden argued that the presence of the Ten Commandments monument on state property violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government endorsement of religion.

Constitutional Question

Does the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitol building violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Arguments

For Van Orden:

• The display of the Ten Commandments on government property amounts to an endorsement of religion, which is prohibited by the Establishment Clause.
• The monument’s religious message is clear, and its presence on state property could be interpreted as the government favoring a particular religious view.
• The location of the monument on the state capitol grounds, a place of political power and authority, further suggests government endorsement of its religious message.

For Perry (Governor of Texas):

• The Ten Commandments monument is part of a broader display of historical and cultural monuments on the Capitol grounds and serves a secular purpose by acknowledging the historical influence of the Ten Commandments on the development of legal principles.
• The monument has been in place for decades without controversy, and its presence does not coerce or compel individuals to engage in religious practices.
• The Establishment Clause does not require the removal of religious symbols from public spaces if they have a secular context or historical significance.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Perry. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority, held that the Ten Commandments monument did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court emphasized several key points:

1. Historical Context: The Court reasoned that the Ten Commandments have a dual significance, both religious and historical. The monument’s placement among other markers of law and history on the Capitol grounds reflected the historical and legal traditions of the United States rather than a specific religious endorsement.
2. Lemon Test Not Applied: The majority did not apply the Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which examines whether a law or government action has a secular purpose, advances or inhibits religion, or fosters excessive government entanglement with religion. Instead, the Court considered the overall context of the monument.
3. Non-Coercion: The Court found that the monument did not coerce anyone into religious observance and that its placement did not amount to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

Significance

Van Orden v. Perry is a significant case in the ongoing debate over the role of religious symbols in public spaces. The decision emphasized the importance of historical context when evaluating potential Establishment Clause violations. The ruling underscored that not all religious displays on public property are unconstitutional, particularly when they are part of a broader historical or cultural display. This case, along with McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (decided the same day), highlighted the nuanced approach the Court takes in Establishment Clause cases, where the context and presentation of religious symbols play a critical role in determining their constitutionality. The case has influenced subsequent legal disputes over the display of religious symbols on public property.