Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum | |
---|---|
Argued November 12, 2008 Decided February 25, 2009 | |
Full case name | Pleasant Grove City, Utah, et al. v. Summum |
Docket no. | 07-665 |
Citations | 555 U.S. 460 (more) 129 S. Ct. 1125; 172 L. Ed. 2d 853; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 1636; 77 U.S.L.W. 4136; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 648 |
Holding | |
A municipality's acceptance and acquisition of a privately funded permanent monument erected in a public park while refusing to accept other privately funded permanent memorials is a valid expression of governmental speech. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Concurrence | Stevens, joined by Ginsburg |
Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
Concurrence | Breyer |
Concurrence | Souter (in judgment) |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009), is a decision from the
Issue
In this case, the United States Supreme Court considered whether the municipality of Pleasant Grove, Utah, which allows privately donated monuments, including one of the Ten Commandments, to be displayed on public property, must also let the Summum church put up its own statue, similar in size to the one of the Ten Commandments.
According to the New York Times: "In 2003, the president of the Summum church wrote to the mayor here with a proposal: the church wanted to erect a monument inscribed with the Seven Aphorisms in the city park, 'similar in size and nature' to the one devoted to the Ten Commandments. The city declined, a lawsuit followed and a federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment required the city to display the Summum monument."[1]
The Supreme Court's decision was expected to be the most important
Arguing for the petitioner (the City of Pleasant Grove) was
Holding
On February 25, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Summum in the Pleasant Grove case. Justice Samuel Alito, in his opinion for the court, explained that a municipality's acceptance and acquisition of a privately funded permanent monument erected in a public park, while refusing to accept other privately funded permanent memorials, is a valid expression of governmental speech, which is permissible and not an unconstitutional interference with the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
According to Alito, "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" is perceived by an ordinary and reasonable observer to be an expression of values and ideas of the government, the owner of the park and the monument, even though the particular idea expressed by the monument is left to the interpretation of the individual observer.
Alito made a clear distinction between forms of private speech in public parks, such as rallies and temporary holiday displays (
Alito wrote, "cities and other jurisdictions take some care in accepting donated monuments." While Summum attempted to persuade the Court that preventing governments from selecting monuments on the basis of content would be tenable, Justice Alito noted that such a situation could put government in the position of accepting permanent monuments with conflicting messages, that do not represent the values and ideals of the community, or removing all monuments from public space. He questioned whether, if the law followed the view expressed by Summum, New York City would have been required to accept a Statue of Autocracy from the German Empire or Imperial Russia when it accepted the Statue of Liberty from France.[4]
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 555
- Stone v. Graham (1980)
- Glassroth v. Moore (11th Cir. 2003)
- Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
- McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005)
- Green v. Haskell County Board of Commissioners (10th Cir. 2009)
References
- New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2008.
- New York Times. October 6, 2008.
- ACLJ. November 9, 2008. Archived from the originalon January 14, 2008.
- ^ "Supreme Court rules against Summum in Ten Commandments case". Salt Lake Tribune. February 25, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
External links
- Works related to Pleasant Grove City v. Summum at Wikisource
- Text of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
- Savage, David G. (April 1, 2008). "Display one creed, permit all? Must a city park that displays one monument also permit others'?". Los Angeles Times.
- "Pleasant Grove City vs. Summum". Oyez. Retrieved November 26, 2019.
- New York Times. Retrieved November 26, 2019.