Background
This case was argued on March 2, 2005 at the Supreme Court of the US sitting in the state of Kentucky. It involved the American civil liberties union (ACLU) of Kentucky (the petitioner) and the county of McCreary in Kentucky. The petitioner had lost the case at an appellate court, where it had accused two Kentucky counties, McCreary and Pulaski, of displaying some excerpts of the biblical “Ten Commandments” in their courthouses. The petitioner had argued that the displays were against the federal constitution of the United States. The appellate court made a decision against ACLU arguing that the “lemon test” established under case law Lemon v. Kurtzman was supposed to be abandoned or reformulated.
Facts
After the court of appeal ruled in favor of the two counties, they went further and displayed large and readily readable excerpts of the biblical copies of the Ten Commandments. However, ACLU and others were unsatisfied. They petitioned the two counties at the Supreme Court. In this case, they decided to join the two cases together accusing the two counties of violation of the First Amendment. On their part, the two counties decided to adopt similar resolutions in their deference. Moreover, they argued that ethical backgrounds supported their actions because the state of Kentucky had some laws that indicate, “Christ is the prince of Ethics”. They further argued that they had modified the displays so that they included smaller historical elements such as the “endowed by the creator”, which was entwined in the “declaration of independence” in the US national symbols. The petitioners argued that the displays were invoking religious matters. For instance, they provided evidence that the state of McCreany had some religious citation from the Book of Exodus 20:3-17
Issue
The legal issue was to determine whether placing the Ten Commandments or any other historical document on official display at the public walls by any authority amounted to a violation of the federal constitution, specifically the Establishment Clause.
Rule
The Supreme Court of the US sitting in Kentucky ruled that the cited displays amounted to the violation of the constitution under the Establishment Clause. On their part, the counties were not able to demonstrate that they had not violated the clause. The court ruled in favor of ACLU et al.
Reasoning/argument
The case was argued before Justice Souter and other judges of the Supreme Court. Justice Souter delivered the final opinion and judgment of the bench. The majority explained that a sole illegitimate purpose was adequate ground for finding whether an action had violated the constitution. They further argued that any government that attempted to advance religion within its mandate acted in a manner that suggested violation of its obligations of neutrality, which were needed to achieve tolerance as a part of the elements or guarantees that imposed or supported liberty.
Future implications
This case sets forth a number of legal issues that need to be determined and explained. For example, it attempted to interfere with authorities in expressing their ethical backgrounds or principles within their codes of conduct. The decision by the Supreme Court seems to prohibit authorities from citing historical matters that seem to incline to a certain religion. Therefore, a number of other cases are likely to emerge seeking to determine whether some citations in courts of arms, displays, and other elements violate the Establishment Clause.