Opening Brief Filed at Supreme Court in “Monumental” First Amendment Case

"Accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny."—Jay Sekulow, chief counsel, ACLJ

WASHINGTON, June 16, 2008—Today, The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed an opening brief at the Supreme Court of the United States, containing its written legal arguments on behalf of a Utah city-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.  "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."

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 ACLJ argues the lower court made a serious error by confusing government speech with private speech.

"That the items the government selects may have private origins does not mean that the private sources are the ones who are speaking through the selection process.  For example, while The Great Gatsby is admittedly not government speech, the selection of that book for placement on a public library's shelves is government speech.  F. Scott Fitzgerald (were he still alive) could neither insist on the book's inclusion . . . nor object to its removal from the shelves to make way for the latest Harry Potter book."

Summum's brief in response is due on August 15. The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case in November.   A decision would likely be issued sometime in 2009.

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 www.aclj.org.  The ACLJ's online newsroom can be accessed at www.DeMossNewsPond.com/ACLJ.

-30-