373 P.3d 1032
Okla.2015Background
- A privately donated Ten Commandments monument was installed on the north plaza of the Oklahoma State Capitol after the Legislature passed the Ten Commandments Monument Display Act; no public funds purchased the monument but it sits on state property.
- Plaintiffs (Prescott, Huff, Franklin, Chabot) sued the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission seeking removal under Oklahoma Constitution Art. II, § 5 (prohibiting use of public money or property for the benefit of any religion).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Commission; plaintiffs appealed and the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the case.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding the monument’s presence on state property benefits the Judeo‑Christian religious system and therefore violates Art. II, § 5; the monument is enjoined and must be removed.
- Several justices issued separate concurring and dissenting opinions addressing (a) reliance on the plain text of Art. II, § 5 vs. context-based/Establishment Clause analyses; (b) whether Meyer v. Oklahoma City should be followed or overruled; and (c) the historical origins of Art. II, § 5 (not a Blaine Amendment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does placement of the Ten Commandments monument on Capitol grounds violate Okla. Const. Art. II, § 5? | Prescott: Monument on state property (even if privately funded) "uses" public property to benefit religion and thus violates § 5. | Commission: No public funds used; monument is historical/secular in purpose and akin to displays upheld under federal cases. | Held: Yes. The Court read § 5 plainly and broadly: the monument benefits a system of religion and violates Art. II, § 5; it must be removed. |
| Is federal Establishment Clause jurisprudence (e.g., Van Orden/McCreary) controlling or binding? | Prescott: State constitution § 5 provides independent, broader protection — federal tests are not controlling. | Commission: Federal precedents are relevant and support constitutionality in some contexts (Van Orden). | Held: Oklahoma Court decided under its own constitution; federal tests are not controlling here though some concurrences considered federal analogies and relevant distinctions. |
| Should Meyer v. Oklahoma City (1972) — which upheld a cross at fairgrounds based on secular context — control this case? | Prescott: Meyer is distinguishable; Capitol setting and explicit religious text differ. | Commission: Meyer shows context can neutralize religious symbolism. | Held: Majority rejected Meyer’s relevance here (some justices would explicitly overrule Meyer); Court emphasized the plain text of § 5 and the Capitol setting. |
| Is Art. II, § 5 an offshoot of the Blaine Amendment (narrower, school‑focused prohibition)? | Prescott: § 5 is broader and has origins independent of the Blaine Amendment; it bars use of public property for religious benefit. | Commission: Argues historical comparisons and federal cases should inform analysis. | Held: The Court (and concurring opinions) found § 5 broader than Blaine, tracing origins to earlier state constitutions and the Virginia tradition; Blaine framing is misplaced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (plurality/controlling concurrence about contextual factors for Ten Commandments monument).
- McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (Ten Commandments display struck down where history and context showed religious purpose).
- Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (posting Ten Commandments in public school classrooms violated Establishment Clause).
- Meyer v. Oklahoma City, 496 P.2d 789 (Okla. 1972) (Oklahoma case upholding a 50‑foot cross on fairgrounds based on secular commercial context).
- Connell v. Gray, 127 P. 417 (Okla. 1912) (early Oklahoma decision interpreting prohibition on public support of sectarian organizations).
- Gurney v. Ferguson, 122 P.2d 1002 (Okla. 1941) (invalidating use of public school buses to transport students to sectarian schools under Art. II, § 5 line of cases).
- Green v. Haskell County Bd. of Comm'rs, 568 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2009) (Tenth Circuit recognizing Ten Commandments can have secular significance but striking a county monument under Establishment Clause).