McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union
2005 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005.[1] At issue was whether the Court should continue to inquire into the purpose behind a religious display and whether evaluation of the government's claim of secular purpose for the religious displays may take evolution into account under an Establishment Clause of the First Amendment analysis.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2012) |
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky | |
---|---|
Argued March 2, 2005 Decided June 27, 2005 | |
Full case name | McCreary County, Kentucky, et al., v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, this case was initially started by Paul Lee Sr. Of Pulaski County Kentucky, et al. |
Docket no. | 03-1693 |
Citations | 545 U.S. 844 (more) 125 S. Ct. 2722; 162 L. Ed. 2d 729; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5211; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 532 |
Case history | |
Prior | Judgment for plaintiff, 96 F. Supp. 2d 679 (E.D. Ky. 2000); affirmed, 354 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2003); rehearing denied, 361 F.3d 928 (6th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 543 U.S. 924 (2004). |
Subsequent | Permanent injunction denied, No. 6:99-cv-00507, 2007 WL 2903210 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2007); judgment amended and permanent injunction granted, unreported (E.D. Ky. 2008); affirmed, 607 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2010); cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1217 (2011). |
Holding | |
Displaying the Ten Commandments bespeaks a religious object unless they are integrated with a secular message. The government violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in three ways: The first way was that they were displaying the Ten Commandments in isolation; the second for showing the Commandments along with other religious passages; the third for presenting the Commandments in a presentation of the "Foundations of American Law" exhibit. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Souter, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Concurrence | O'Connor |
Dissent | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, Thomas; Kennedy (Parts II and III) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
In a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the displays—in this case, a Ten Commandments display at the McCreary County courthouse in Whitley City, Kentucky and a Ten Commandments display at the Pulaski County courthouse—were unconstitutional. The appeal from that decision, argued by Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, urged reformulation or abandonment of the "Lemon test" set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which has been applied to religious displays on government property and to other Establishment Clause issues.
The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, in a 5–4 decision, that the display was unconstitutional. The same day, the Court handed down another 5–4 decision in Van Orden v. Perry with the opposite outcome. The "swing vote" in both cases was Justice Stephen Breyer.