Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The Bush administration has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to allow religious Ten Commandments displays on government property, adding a federal view on a major church-state case that justices will deal with early next year. The government has weighed in before in religion cases at the high court, including one earlier this year that challenged the words “under God” in the classroom recitation of the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. The government supported a California school district in that case. Now, it is backing two Kentucky counties that had framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. The American Civil Liberties Union sued McCreary and Pulaski counties, claiming the displays were an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The group won. Justices will hear arguments, probably in February, in the counties’ appeal and in a second case involving a Texas homeless man who wants a 6-foot granite monument removed from the state Capitol grounds. The Bush administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, Paul Clement, told justices in Wednesday’s filing that Ten Commandments displays are common around the nation — and in the Court’s own building, the Capitol and national monuments. “Reproductions and representations of the Ten Commandments have been commonly employed across the country to symbolize both the rule of law itself, as well as the role of religion in the development of American law,” Clement wrote. Clement said the displays are important in educating people “about the nation’s history and celebrating its heritage.” The Supreme Court banned the posting of Ten Commandments in public schools in 1980. Clement argued that courthouses are different from schools and often have “historic symbols of law.” Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor and former legal counsel to President Reagan and the first President George H.W. Bush, said that the government had been expected to file arguments in the case. “It would have been politically untenable and legally timid if the government’s chief court litigator had not done so,” he said. Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, rewritten, or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.