WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Monday it will not hear a case over the ordered removal of a Ten Commandments monument on a county courthouse lawn.
Five years ago the high court issued a pair of sharply divided rulings that both upheld and overturned public displays of the Ten Commandments.
The dispute the justices refused to give further consideration to comes from Haskell County, Oklahoma where ten donated permanent monuments are on display outside on the courthouse lawn. Those monuments include war memorials and another honoring the Choctaw Nation. James Green and the ACLU sued to remove the one inscribed with the Ten Commandments arguing its placement on the public lawn is unconstitutional.
A trial court upheld the county’s decision to erect the privately-funded monument but last year a three judge panel of the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously overturned that ruling in favor of Green and the ACLU. An evenly split panel (6-6) of the entire Tenth Circuit decided against taking another look at the case which led to Haskell County’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
In its petition asking the justices to take the case, lawyers for Haskell County argued their case offers the justices a straightforward opportunity to clarify the procedures by which judges can determine if the Constitution is infringed. The County contends a “well-informed and reasonable observer” test is the proper standard to figure out if the display is impermissible. In other words, would a well-informed and reasonable person conclude that this monument in its exact location represents an improper government endorsement of a specific religious belief?
In asking the justices to deny further review, lawyers for the ACLU argued there is nothing for the Court to clarify and that context matters for trial judges to figure out if a monument crosses the line. “The Tenth Circuit and other courts of appeals have faithfully heeded this fact-sensitive approach,” wrote Daniel Mach on behalf of Green and the ACLU.
In 2005, the high court issued a pair of 5-4 rulings that prohibited the display of the Ten Commandments inside a Kentucky courthouse but allowed for the erection of a monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin. They reasoned the Kentucky display was impermissible because it favorably viewed a particular religious belief while the Texas monument was acceptable because it emphasized the historical and educational importance of the Ten Commandments.