 Case wanted precedent that would have allowed a Statue of Tyranny to accompany the Statue of Liberty |
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that governments in the U.S. are not required to post or display every statement offered by private organizations.
The ruling came in a case stemming from a dispute in Utah in which a religious organization called Summum demanded the city of Pleasant Grove display a monument containing its seven “aphorisms.” Summum argued the city already had accepted a donated monument displaying the Ten Commandments in a city park.
Lawyers with the American Center for Law and Justice, who defended the city, said a requirement that governments display any message offered was “scary” and would lead to absurd scenarios.
“The Minutemen in Massachusetts? We need a Redcoat. A George Washington
statue? Why not George the 3rd. A Holocaust memorial? How about a
Hitler memorial?” said the ACLJ’s Frank Manion in a previous interview with WND.
The non-profit legal group also had suggested that according to Summum’s logic, the nation could be required to allow a “Statue of Tyranny” in New York Harbor to accompany the Statue of Liberty.
The Supreme Court’s ruling concluded those fears are “well founded.”
At the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, judges had ruled that Summum was entitled to have its monument displayed by the city.
The ACLJ contended Ten Commandments monuments nationwide were the real targets of the legal action, because in many circumstances, cities or other governments likely would order such monuments removed rather than order acceptance of others.
Today’s decision, ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow told WND, is a “huge victory.”
“This decision allows government to convey messages about its own history of its community, and includes religious monuments,” he said. “Religious monuments are not treated differently than others. Most significantly, the government get to make the selections.”
The ACLJ, which has worked on the case with the Thomas More Law Center, explained the Constitution “does not empower private parties to force permanent displays into a park, crowding out the available physical space and trumping the government’s own vision” for the parks.
A monument is not the same as a message delivered in a public forum, either, the opinion said.
“Speakers, no matter how long-winded, eventually come to the end of their remarks; persons distributing leaflets and carrying signs at some point tire and go home; monuments, however, endure. They monopolize the use of the land on which they stand and interfere permanently with other uses of public space. A public park, over the years, can provide a soapbox for a very large number of orators – often, for all who want to speak – but it is hard to imagine how a public park could be opened up for the installation of permanent monuments by every person or group wishing to engage in that form of expression,” said the court.
“There may be situations in which it is difficult to tell whether a government entity is speaking on its own behalf or is providing a forum for private speech, but this case does not present such a situation. Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech,” the opinion said.
“Just as government-commissioned and government-financed monuments speak for the government so do privately financed and donated monuments that the government accepts and displays to the public on government land … We think it is fair to say that throughout our Nation’s history, the general government practice with respect to donated monuments has been one of selective receptivity.”
The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. David Souter filed an opinion concurring in judgment.
In his arguments to the high court, Sekulow said another ruling in the case would “create havoc in America over how local, state and federal governments choose to memorialize significant events.”
He suggested the basic question is whether a city gets to decide which permanent, unattended monuments, if any, to install on city property. The answer is ‘Yes,'” he said. “The fact is that government speech means the government can control its message. For example, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny.”
“Summum’s assertion of a right to force its monument upon the city has no legitimate basis in Supreme Court case law,” Sekulow said.
Summum, founded in Salt Lake City in 1975, calls itself a church. The group sued Pleasant Grove in federal court, alleging that because the city had a donated Ten Commandments monument in a city park, the First Amendment required the city to accept and display a monument to Summum’s seven aphorisms.
The aphorisms, according to the group’s website, predate the Ten Commandments and include: The principles of psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, cause and effect, and gender.
The “church” claims the aphorisms were written on the original stone tablets given by God to Moses, which he broke when he saw the Israelites had manufactured a golden calf idol during his absence. The organization says the tablets were broken because Moses realized people couldn’t understand the aphorisms, so he came down a second time with the Ten Commandments.
