Lynch v. Donnelly
| Lynch v. Donnelly | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 4, 1983 Decided March 5, 1984 |
|
| Full case name | Dennis M. Lynch, Mayor of Pawtucket, et al. v. Daniel Donnelly, et al. |
| Citations | 465 U.S. 668 (more)
104 S. Ct. 1355; 79 L. Ed. 2d 604; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 37; 52 U.S.L.W. 4317
|
| Holding | |
| The city of Pawtucket's nativity scene does not violate the Establishment Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by White, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the legality of Christmas decorations on town property.
Pawtucket, Rhode Island's annual Christmas display in the city's shopping district, consisting of a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, a banner reading "Season's Greetings," and a crèche, was challenged in court. The crèche had been a part of the display since at least 1943. The plaintiffs brought the suit to the District Court of Rhode Island, which permanently enjoined the city from displaying the Nativity scene as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The city then petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court reversed previous rulings in a vote of 5–4, ruling that the display was not an effort to advocate a particular religious message and had "legitimate secular purposes."
Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices White, Powell, Rehnquist, and O'Connor joined. The Court held that the crèche did not violate the Establishment Clause based on the test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). They ruled that the crèche is a passive representation of religion and that there was "insufficient evidence to establish that the inclusion of the crèche is a purposeful or surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious" view. They also stated that the Constitution "affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any."
...
Wikipedia