WASHINGTON, D.C., June 27, 2005: The US Supreme Court struggled in a pair of 5-4 rulings Monday to define how much blending of church and state is constitutionally permissible, allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed outside the Texas state Capitol but not inside Kentucky courthouses. In its first rulings on the issue in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments on government property are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it amounts to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits. In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
In the Kentucky ruling and a second decision involving the positioning of a 6-foot granite monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor joined members of the liberal bloc in arguing the displays were unconstitutional. Stephen G. Breyer, normally part of the more liberal wing, joined them in the Kentucky case but voted with the more conservative members to make a 5-4 majority in favor of the Texas display.
The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses like their own courtroom frieze 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.
The rulings were the court’s first major statement on the Ten Commandments since 1980, when justices barred their display in public schools. But the high court’s split verdict leaves somewhat unsettled the role of religion in American society, a question that has become a flashpoint in U.S. politics. “While the court correctly rejects the challenge to the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds, a more fundamental rethinking of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains in order,” Thomas wrote in a separate opinion.
Dissenting in the Texas case, Justice John Paul Stevens argued the display was an improper government endorsement of religion. Stevens noted in large letters the monument proclaims ‘I AM the LORD thy God.'” “The sole function of the monument on the grounds of Texas’ State Capitol is to display the full text of one version of the Ten Commandments,” Stevens wrote. “The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in the history of the state,” Stevens wrote. “The message transmitted by Texas’ chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God.”
Ten Commandments displays are supported by a majority of Americans, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. The poll taken in late February found that 76 percent support it and 23 percent oppose it.