Van Orden v. Perry
| Van Orden v. Perry | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 2, 2005 Decided June 27, 2005 |
|
| Full case name | Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor of Texas and Chairman, State Preservation Board, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 03-1500 |
| Citations | 545 U.S. 677 (more)
125 S. Ct. 2854; 162 L. Ed. 2d 607; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5215; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 494
|
| Prior history | Judgment for defendant, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26709 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2002); affirmed, 351 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2003); rehearing denied, 89 Fed. Appx. 905 (5th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 543 U.S. 923 (2004) |
| Holding | |
| A Ten Commandments monument erected on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause, because the monument, when considered in context, conveyed a historic and social meaning rather than an intrusive religious endorsement. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concurrence | Breyer |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg |
| Dissent | O'Connor |
| Dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In a suit brought by Thomas Van Orden of Austin, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in November 2003 that the displays were constitutional, on the grounds that the monument conveyed both a religious and secular message. Van Orden appealed, and in October 2004 the high court agreed to hear the case at the same time as it heard McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, a similar case challenging a display of the Ten Commandments at two county courthouses in Kentucky.
The appeal of the 5th Circuit's decision was argued by Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar and the Alston & Bird Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law, who represented Van Orden on a pro bono basis. Texas' case was argued by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. An amicus curiae was presented on behalf of the respondents (the state of Texas) by then-Solicitor General Paul Clement.
...
Wikipedia