The First Amendment

First Amendment Case Study

Jonathan Zaun

The disputed legality of government sponsored religious displays is a matter which must be examined through the unclouded lens provided by the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's 1st amendment. This prohibition of state sanctioned or sponsored religious activity states expressly that governing bodies shall not support or endorse any religious viewpoint through either establishment or preferential treatment. In many instances, however, public displays have been erected under the auspices of government endorsement, displays which include direct religious references while purporting to espouse secular ideals. Legal precedent pertaining to the Constitutionality of public religious displays addresses the following legal issues regarding the dispute between the Church of the Albatross and Springfield citizens opposed to their planned construction of a religious statue: Should the common exception granted to religiously themed displays such Christmas decorations, displays which have been secularized and accepted by the community at large, be extended to the Albatross Church's proposed statue? Is the public forum provided by the town square, which is owned and operated by the Springfield municipal government, a legally permissible location for a religious monument? Should the Church's plan be protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? For these issues to be properly addressed, the question of whether or not building this statue in its planned location represents a violation of the Establishment Clause must be decided.

The fact that the Church proposes to build a permanent statue in the public realm of the Springfield town square is a key factor to consider when examining this case, as the Court has ruled previously in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum that the choice to displaying a monument in a public area is an example of governmental speech and is therefore not subject to the Free Speech Clause. Precedent holds that a local jurisdiction is within its rights to choose which, if any, privately donated monuments may be erected in public forums, so the onus falls on the government of Springfield to make its choice.

The fact that the town square typically displays Christmas and holiday decorations, as well as hosting groups of people singing religiously themed hymns and carols, is made irrelevant by the Court's decision in Lynch v. Donnelly. In Lynch, the Court held that holiday decorations are secular instruments celebrating the season rather than tools used to endorse a particular religious view. The Church's proposed statue, holding no purpose other than spreading awareness of the Albatross religion, simply does not pass Justice O'Connor's endorsement test. The Court ruled similarly in Allegheny v. ACLU when it found that the display of a religious instrument in a public forum requires a contextual setting that detracts from its religious message in order to remain constitutional.

There are of course many instances in which a public display of religious themes is permissible, as the Court held in Salazar v. Buono. In the Salazar ruling, Justice Kennedy concluded that the Court's responsibility to police governmental endorsement of religion does not necessarily require the complete denial of religious symbols in the public realm. The statue proposed by the Church, however, is not protected by Salazar because the Latin cross discussed in that case held an element of historical importance to the community which the statue clearly lacks.