NOV. 12: Oral Arguments Scheduled for “Monumental” First Amendment Case at U.S. Supreme Court

The American Center for Law and Justice Is Working to Protect Nation’s Freedom of Speech and Heritage

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6, 2008—"We're hopeful the high court will correct a troubling decision that ultimately would force local governments to remove long-standing and well-established patriotic, religious and historical displays." -Jay Sekulow, ACLJ chief counsel

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is preparing oral arguments to present before the Supreme Court on Nov. 12 to defend the rights of two Utah cities - but with ramifications that could impact First Amendment rights for communities across the country.  The ACLJ is appealing a lower-court decision that would leave local governments with two options: remove long-standing monuments or permit any group to display any monument-regardless of content - in public places. 

The Supreme Court granted the ACLJ's petition to hear Pleasant Grove City v. Summum on March 31, 2008. 

"The Supreme Court is faced with what we believe is an easy choice:  preserve sound precedent involving the well-established distinction between government speech and private speech-or permit a twisted interpretation of the Constitution to create havoc in cities and localities across America," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, who will present oral arguments to the high court on behalf of Pleasant Grove.  "Accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny."

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit split 6-6 over a request for the full appeals court to re-hear two cases involving demands that the Utah cities of Pleasant Grove City and Duchesne City erect monuments containing the "Seven Aphorisms" of a group called Summum.  The federal appeals court had ruled in favor of Summum in both cases, saying the group could insist upon erecting its own "Seven Aphorisms" monuments in the cities' parks because the cities already displayed monuments of the Ten Commandments, which were donated decades ago.

The opening brief (posted here) contends:  "The Tenth Circuit made several crucial errors in constitutional analysis.  The First Amendment does not require that a government park be turned into a cluttered junkyard of monuments contributed by all comers."

The ACLJ reply brief (posted here) explains:  "The basic question is whether a city gets to decide which permanent, unattended monuments, if any, to install on city property.  The answer is ‘Yes.'" 

Fifteen friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed supporting the ACLJ's position, including briefs from the U. S. government, 14 states, nine cities (including New York), veterans groups (including the American Legion and the VFW), and various religious liberty groups (including both Christian and Jewish organizations).  

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses on constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C.  The ACLJ is online at http://www.aclj.org/.  The ACLJ's online newsroom, which includes downloadable, high-res images and bios of principals, can be found at www.DeMossNewsPond.com/aclj.

-30-