Split rulings on Ten Commandments displays

updated 3:36 p.m. ET June 27, 2005

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays that promote religion, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state.

The high court said displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.

In that 5-4 ruling, and another ruling involving a granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the swing vote. The second ruling, likewise, was 5-4.

In a stinging dissent to the ruling involving Kentucky’s courthouse exhibits, Justice Antonin Scalia declared: “What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle.”

Fine line on neutrality
The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses would be permissible if they’re portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation’s legal history.

But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held. Those courthouse displays are unconstitutional, the justices said, because their religious content is overemphasized.

In contrast, a 6-foot-granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol — one of 17 historical displays on the 22-acre lot — was determined to be a legitimate tribute to the nation’s legal and religious history.

“Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious — they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority in the case involving the display outside the state capitol of Texas.

“Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause,” he said.

Kentucky ruling
Writing for the majority in the Kentucky case, Justice David Souter said that “the touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” 

“When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality,” he said.

Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, as well as O’Connor.

In his dissent, Scalia argued that Ten Commandments displays are a legitimate tribute to the nation’s religious and legal history.

“The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history,” he wrote.

Kentucky officials may have had a religious purpose when they originally posted the Ten Commandments display by itself in 1999. But their efforts to dilute the religious message since then by hanging other historical documents in the courthouses made it constitutionally adequate, Scalia said.

He was joined in his opinion by Chief William Rehnquist, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

MORE FROM U.S. NEWS

U.S. news Section Front

Doctors questioned Hasan's behavior Of bats and billions: Following stimulus funds As stimulus funds trickle down, debate heats up Brown pelicans coming off endangered list   Five men charged in child sex case Report: 10 states face budget disasters Obama honors veterans at Arlington cemetery Dog trainer killed by ex-wife's beau? More soldiers bring home war wounds Stench returns to area of Ohio killings U.S. news Section Front   Add U.S. news headlines to your news reader: