ACLU Nebraska Foundation v. City of Plattsmouth

Sеparation imposed a Americans United different sentence. would have See, Light, State, States v. 406 F.3d e.g., United Church Amicus on (8th Cir.2005). Therefore, 995, 1000 Appellee, Behalf of did not district court commit reversible

plain sentencing Hull under man- error Law, Inc.; Foundation for Moral Wall datory guidelines. builders, Inc.; Legal National

Foundation, Ap Behalf Amici on pellant. III. CONCLUSION above,

For affirm the reasons stated No. 02-2444. conspiracy

Hull’s convictions for to distrib- Appeals, United States Court marijuana marijua- ute distribution Eighth Circuit. na. Sept. Submitted:

HEANEY, Judge, conсurring. Circuit Aug. Filed: I Judge adhere to view stated Bye Pirani, that defendants who did not

properly preserve their Booker claims

the district generally court nonetheless resentencing

entitled to under constitu

tional regime. See States v. Pira

ni, (8th Cir.2005) (en 562-67

banc) (Bye, dissenting). Because a ma

jority of our court has the contrary, held to

however, I concur. FOUNDATION;

ACLU NEBRASKA Doe,

John Plaintiffs—

Appellees, PLATTSMOUTH,

CITY OF

NEBRASKA, Defendant-

Appellant, Nebraska,

State of Amicus on Appellant,

Behalf of LOKEN, Judge, Before Chief

RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, MORRIS ARNOLD, MURPHY, BYE, SHEPPARD RILEY, ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍MELLOY, SMITH, COLLOTON, BENTON, GRUENDER, and Circuit En Judges, Banc.

BOWMAN, Judge. Circuit Plattsmouth, Nebraska, City ap- of peals grant District Court’s sum- mary judgment Doe, favor John resident, Plattsmouth and the ACLU Ne- on claim braska Foundation their City’s display of a Ten Commandments monument violates the Establishment First Amendment. We re- verse. Eagles Fraternal Order of

(Eagles) City donated to the Platts- mouth an five-foot-tall and approximately granite monument in- three-foot-wide scribed with a nonsеctarian version Above text of Commandments.2 Commandments appear two small tab- design; eye a floral an lets surrounded all-seeing eye pyramid within a simi- —an to that on the back of a appearing lar bill; eagle clutching the dollar and an text are American Below the two flag. David; the intertwined Greek let- Stars Manion, argued, Hope, Francis J. New “rho”; reading, ters “chi” and and scroll Lincoln, NE, (Jeffrey Downing KY on THE CITY OF “PRESENTED TO brief), for appellant. PLATTSMOUTH, BY FRA- NEBRASKA TERNAL OF EAGLES Lincoln, ORDER Miller, Amy argued, A. NE (Sue brief), AERIE Wall, NO. 1965.” appellee. PLATTSMOUTH Ellen Plattsmouth, F.Supp.2d Sheppard Arnold Found. 1. The Honorable Richard September opinion This (D.Neb.2002) died on (noting n. remaining judges of the en banc filed identical in content Plattsmouth monument is court. Cir. R. 47E. See 8th in Books to monument at issue Elkhart, (7th Cir.2000), 294-95 2. The lists eleven commands os- denied, 1058, 121 S.Ct. cert. amalgamation tensibly to serve as (2001), in which nonsecta Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic versions of discussed). ACLU rian nature of text is the Ten Commandments. See Nebraska Br., Appellant’s exist, Ex. 0. The Plattsmouth there is little evidence in the record many monument is one other Ten Com- regarding process by which the monu- given by mandments monuments the Ea- accepted ment was and installed. towns, cities, gles to and even states in the more than thirty-five years af- Eagles 1950s and 1960s.3 is a national installed, ter the social, civic, monument was patriotic Doe and organization. Its local chapter responsible has been Plattsmouth, for the ACLU sued City many philanthropic and community-en- claiming that the Ten Commandments hancing City contributions to the of Platts- monument interfered with Doe’s use of mouth. Memorial Park and him modify caused to

The monument was erected a corner his travel routes and other behavior to forty-five-acre Plattsmouth’s Memorial avoid unwanted contact with the monu- Park, ten blocks distant from Plattsmouth ment. According ACLU, to Doe and the City Hall. Then Street Commissioner Art City’s display of the monument in Me- Hellwig, time, Eagles an officer at the and morial Park is a violation of the Establish- City employees other helped erect the ment Clause. The District granted monument, although it is not known summary judgment plain- favor of the City employees whether these acting were tiffs, finding that both Doe and the ACLU personal in their capacities. or official standing have bring to suit and that the monument is located two yards hundred City’s display of the monument violates the away from park’s public lot, parking Establishment Clause. and there are no roads or walkways from parking lot to the monument. The appeal, On a divided panel of this Court words of the monument away face from affirmed. ACLU Nebraska City Found. v. park, away recreational Plattsmouth, (8th 358 F.3d 1020 Cir. tables, equipment, picnic benches, or shel- 2004), vacated rehearing en banc Although ters. the inscribed side of the granted, April 2004. After agreeing road, monument faces the it is too far with the District Court that both Doe and away to be read passing motorists. the ACLU have standing pursue City of Plattsmouth performs no regu- action, opinion of the Court concluded lar maintenance on the but if (1) Plattsmouth’s display of the monu repairs required, City employees per- ment form violates the those Establishment duties. addition to the mon- ument, contains, park City’s because the among purpose in installing or items, recreational equipment, picnic ta- maintaining the monument solely was reli shelters, bles and and a baseball diamond. (2) gious and display’s primary effect Certain individuаl items located in the impermissible was an endorsement of reli park, benches, such grills, as picnic gion. Id. at 1026-31. shelters, bear plaques identifying their do- granted We petition addition, for nors. large plaque inscribed rehearing en banc with to review the names of all the District donors to Memorial Park is park’s located near the Court’s determination that City’s entrance. dis- contemporaneous Because no play records of the monument violates the Estab- Although Found., Eagles’s Inc., (Colo.1995), 898 P.2d project denied, attempt pro rt. 116 S.Ct. —an ce youths vide with a (1996); common code of conduct 133 L.Ed.2d 841 as well as govern their actions—is recounted in detail Justice Stevens in his dissent in Van Orden v. cases, see, - Books, e.g., in other 294-95; -,-, Perry, 235 F.3d at U.S. 2854, 2877-78, State v. Religion Freedom (2005) (Ste- From test, Under Lemon religion. govern the benefit of Clause.4 With lishment ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍de- Supreme Court’s recent for practice permissible purposes States ment — Perry, v. Van Orden analysis cision only of Establishment Clause if -, (2) (1) purpose; princi it has (2005), nowwe reverse. pal primary effect neither advances nor religion; inhibits it does not foster we a district court’s

When consider with entanglement religion. review excessive summary judgment, grant (cita Id., 612-13, fact clear error and conclu- 403 U.S. at findings of S.Ct. 2105 Royer Royer omitted); of law de novo. ex rel. sions tions Children’s Healthcare is a Grove, 685, 687 Oak Parle, Duty, Inc. Min De Legal Cir.2004). (8th the facts We view (8th Cir.2000), F.3d cert. de nonmoving par- light most favorable to nied, that give this case the ty (2001). —and 372 —in L.Ed.2d all reasonable infer- the benefit of party After the Court banc heard argument en may from facts. that drawn the ences be case, present in the the United States Am., Parcel Serv. Morgan v. United in on Supreme weighed Court the constitu- (8th Cir.2004), Inc., 459, cert. F.3d 463 380 tionality government displays of certain — denied, U.S.-, 1933, 125 S.Ct. 161 Orden, Ten the Commandments. Van (2005). 773 L.Ed.2d — U.S.-, 2854, 162 of the The Establishment Clause — 607; ACLU, McCreary County v. U.S. prohibits government First Amendment 2722, -, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 making “respecting an estab law (2005). In Van the Court held that Const, amend. religion.” U.S. lishment not the State Texas did violate the prohibition applies the states I. This it accepted Establishment Clause when Amendment. Ev through the Fourteenth Ten Commandments monument from the Educ., 1, 15, 67 v. Bd. 330 U.S. erson (a virtually Eagles monument identical to (1947). Using the L.Ed. S.Ct. case) in that at issue this installed the in Supreme test described the Court on grounds monument the the Kurtzman, Lemon v. Capitol. Ten (1971), Dis the the monu- along with presence of the trict Court held that the markers, and historical stands on ments in a the Es City park violates twenty-two surrounding acres the Tex- Lemon, the Su tablishment Clause.5 Capitol to “commemorat[e] as State three-part test preme Court announced ideals, ‘people, compose and events that activity analyzing whether for ” identity.’ at prohibited in a establishment Texan results vens, J., standing, adopting dissenting), and the have these facts were not sub- Doe ACLU reasoning opinion parties panel on this case. of the mitted in this Found., 358 F.3d point. See ACLUNebraska Standing in the was nоt raised at 1026-31. banc, petition rehearing for en opinion panel reject- this argument. case was it at oral Our 5. The nor addressed panel’s appellees’ argument that strict three-judge the District ed the affirmance of Valente, scrutiny ruling test in Larson v. Doe and the ACLU have described Court's that 228, 246, 72 L.Ed.2d standing bring action 456 U.S. was unanimous. also, (1982), apply independent duty here. We should Because have panel opinion, jurisdiction ACLU over the the reasons stated in make sure that we have 1032-34, Found., case, reject question we have studied the and now Nebraska argument. Court’s conclusion that affirm District Tex. H. Res. (citing judgment Con. 77th the State —concluded (2001)). In plurality opinion his find Leg. Texas did not violate the Establishment violation, ing no Clause Establishment Clause its of the Ten Command- Rehnquist (joined by Chief Justice Justices ments on grounds, Thomas) Scalia, Kennedy, and acknowl id. at 2864. edged test announced Lemon opinion concurring judg- his governed analysis has occasionally ment in Brеyer agreed Clause over the past Establishment cases that the text of the Ten Commandments twenty-five years, but that “the noted fac undeniably communicates an

tors Lemon as ‘no more identified serve message, cautioned, but as did Chief Jus- ” signposts’ than helpful Establishment tice Rehnquist, see id. at that focus- analysis. (quoting Id. at ing nature of McNair, Hunt 93 alone cannot resolve an Establishment (1973)). Rather, Clause case. consideration must on to cite recent Chief Justice went eases be given to the context in which the Ten did apply which the not Commandments’ text used. According See, e.g., Zelman v. Lemon test. Sim Breyer, to Justice in- the State of Texas mons-Harris, 639, 122 cluded Commandments monument (2002); 153 604 L.Ed.2d Good News Club Capitol grounds display its to communi- Sch., 98, v. U.S. 121 Cent. 533 Milford a cate both a religious mes- (2001). 2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151 Chief concluded, sage. however, He the that ultimately Rehnquist Justice concluded surrounding “circumstances display’s the test “not that the Lemon was useful in placement ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍grounds on the capítol dealing passive with the sort of physical setting suggest that the State” that has erected on its intended the secular of aspects the monu- grounds.” Van 125 S.Ct. at 2861. ment’s predominate, despite Instead, he declared that Establishment inherently monument’s religious con- analysis in these circumstances was tent. at 2870 (Breyer, Id. concurring in by “driven both the nature of the monu judgment). Finally, the Ten Command- ment our history.” Nation’s Id. ments monument had stood on the Texas Explicitly recognizing nature Capitol grounds forty yеars with- and significance of the Ten Command legal out challenge. Breyer’s Justice ments, 2863, id. at the Chief Justice distin view, years 40 suggest strong- “those more guished “passive use” of Ten Com ly than can set of formulaic tests that mandments text the State of Texas few ... likely individuals are to have un- from impermissible of the use text derstood the monument as amounting, the State of Kentucky, copies where any significantly way, detrimental gov- to a text hung public-school classrooms and endorse, ernment effort” to promote, or elementary “confronted school students ev favor religion. Id. ery day,” id. at 2864 (distinguishing Stone Graham, 39, v. 192, Supreme 449 U.S. Court’s 66 decision (1980)). governs After Orden our discussing in resolution some detail case. history our Nation’s insofar Like the Ten as Commandments mon the use of the Ten Commandments ument at issue Van the Platts religious symbols concerned, are mouth id. monument makes passive—and 2859-63, at Rehnquist Chief permissible Justice of the text of the Ten —with —use a fifth vote from Breyer cоncurring Commandments to acknowledge the role (2004) C.J., heritage. (Rehnquist, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 in our Nation’s Simi religion representations judgment) (recognizing lar to and that references government Ten “patriotic invocations God and official our replete throughout coun property religion’s in our acknowledgments role Library try. Buildings housing abound”). Moreover, Nation’s Archives, the De the National Congress, approved Court has certain Justice, Appeals partment of the Court activity directly indirectly recog for the District of Co and District Court religion nizes the role of in our national lumbia, House of United States See, Zelman, 662-63, e.g., life. at depictions all include Representatives (upholding 122 S.Ct. 2460 school voucher id. at 2862- the Ten Commandments. Club, program); News 533 U.S. Good (listing examples gov additional n. 9 120, (permitting religious buildings and monuments reflect ernment groups’ public school use of school facili played has ing prominent religion role Felton, ties); Agostini v. 521 U.S. Indeed, in history). Nation’s our (1997) States Court’s own (allowing employees to teach at reli public Courtroom, frieze Moses depicts holding schools); Rosenberger & gious v. Rector Ten Command represent tablets Univ. of Va., 845- Visitors ments, and the Commandments deco gates doors the metal around rate (permitting disbursement of funds addition, Id. at Courtroom. 2862.6 activity religious organiza student fees to acknowledged in its Supreme Court has tions); Lynch, 465 U.S. at in our the role of coun decisions includ (upholding Christmas See, Vitale, try’s history. e.g., Engel Chambers, creche); ing Marsh 421, 434, 82 8 L.Ed.2d 783, 792, 3330, 103 S.Ct. 77 L.Ed.2d (1962) “history of (noting man 601 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer); 1019 history of inseparable is from the reli Allen, 388, 391, Mueller v. 463 U.S. 103 gion”); Abington Township Dist. v. Sch. (1983) 3062, (allowing 721 S.Ct. 77 L.Ed.2d 1660, 203, 212, 83 S.Ct. Schempp, 374 for certain school religious tax deduction (1963) (acknowledging that this “rich American tra expenses). Given closely identified “religion has been with religious acknowledgments,” dition of government”); Lynch history our and Orden, 2863, con we cannot 125 S.Ct. 675, 668, 465 U.S. 104 Donnelly, S.Ct. Ten City’s clude of a (“Our display (1984) 1355, history 604 79 L.Ed.2d monument violates with official references to the replete in particularly Establishment guidance and invocation of Divine value Clause— in Supreme Court’s decision ”); light .... Elk Grove Sch. Dist. v. Unified 2301, 2317, Newdow, 1, 542 U.S. Van Orden.7 Hemrick, contrast, ings. Eugene the Plattsmouth monument also F. One Nation Quotes, Religious Symbols, relatively Under God: comer of is located in a isolated (Our Sunday Images Capital Park, in Our Nations than distant Memorial more ten blocks 2001). Publishing Visitor Division and, City Hall as far as the from Plattsmouth shows, building any to record not close in Van Orden on The monument government. This fact part that is Capitol grounds is situated between the support provides for our conclusion further Supreme and the State Court. Based effectively protects that Van the Platts- Orden Breyer’s Appendix to Justice concur- attack un- mouth from successful appears ring opinion, the to be addition, der the Clause. Establishment fifty yards or both of those build- within so of required 3330; Maryland, neither “abdi McGowan v. We 366 U.S. 445, 420, 1101, to maintain a divi responsibility cate our L.Ed.2d 393 (1961); York, church and evince a sion between state nor Walz v. Tax Comm’n Newof religion by gov 1409, hostility disabling 397 U.S. (1970). in ways recognizing some L.Ed.2d 697 there ernment from While are limits government heritage.” displays our Id. at 2859. Giv mes symbols, sages en the ac fact well-illustrated “unbroken official case, companion McCreary all Orden’s knowledgment three branches of — U.S.-, County, religion of the role of in 1789,” L.Ed.2d conclude cannot American life from at least id. at Ten of a Command Lynch, (quoting 465 U.S. at ments monument is in 1355), diffеrent consti Court’s tutionally significant way from Texas’s dis in “[r]ecognition the role of our God play a similar monument Van id., that, Orden.8 heritage,” Nation’s we believe like the Ten Commandments monument Van judgment of the District Court is City’s monument has “a dual reversed. significance, partaking religion of both government,” id. at 2864. the monu Like BYE, Circuit Judge, with whom ment at issue Van Ten Com ARNOLD, MORRIS SHEPPARD Circuit mandments monument Memo installed joins, Judge, dissenting. rial Park Plattsmouth is passive acknowledgment of the roles of First religion Amendment’s clauses God religion history. our and, Nation’s stand as a protect religion bulwark to Moreover, as was the freedom, case Van importantly, religious most “man- passed during decades dat[ing] governmental which neutrality between Commandments monument stood in religion religion, and between Plattsmouth’s Memorial nonreligion.” Park without ob McCreary County v. jection. C.J.), See id. at 2864 (Rehnquist, ACLU,-U.S.-,-, 2870 (Breyer, judgment). (quoting Ep Although text Arkansas, of the Ten person Command signifi (1968)). ments has undeniable religious “They cance, “[sjimply having rеligious content or embody idea that once was considered promoting message a consistent with a people radical: Free are entitled to free religious doctrine does not run afoul of the thoughts, and diverse which 2863; Establishment Clause.” ought Id. at see neither to constrain nor to direct.” Lynch, (O’Connor, J., Id. at 2746 concurring). We 1355; Marsh, 463 U.S. at the enforce clauses out of “respect for any Taking this fact tends to offset inference adverse our cue from Chiеf Justice Rehn- City arising to the from ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍the Plattsmouth mon- quist’s opinion Brey- for the and Justice know, being, only ument’s as far as we the concurring opinion er’s we do forty-five-acre City park, monument in the apply not the Lemon test. But were we to twenty-two-acre grounds whereas the of the test, conclude, apply the Lemon we would by well-populated are oth- essentially for the set out reasons in the dis- er monuments various kinds. We note the case, panel present sent to the the decision in present record in the case does not contain Found., Nebraska ACLU 358 F.3d at 1043-50 anything suggest City that would of Platts- (Bowman, J., dissenting), City's dis- mouth ever has turned down monument play passes of monument that test. to was offered it. id., suggest to a broader historical or society,” nothing role in special religion’s context.9 gov relationship “the between recognizing separation, is religion and one ernment relying majority, upon Van suspi and hostility mutual one of but not passive the monument “mаkes holds —and — U.S.-, cion,” Perry, Orden of the of the Ten permissible' text —use 2854, 2869, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 -, acknowledge the role Commandments judg (Breyer, heritage.” in our Nation’s Inas ment). this Because Ten Commandments respect strong played I “the role much as monument, with the displayed erected traditions by religion religious Plattsmouth, of the imprimatur history,” throughout our Nation’s Van Or ideals, dis respectfully these I abridges C.J., den, at 2859 (Rehnquist, sent. I remain true to the plurality opinion), govern principle be- that when concomitant

The Ten Commandments undeniably reli ten takes as its own an It located ment to Plattsmouth. is longs Hall, must gious message, thoroughly “exam from Plattsmouth’s blocks used,” Park, the text id. at 2869 and rests ine how Memorial J., concurring judgment) (Breyer, on a setting shady under trees tranquil a (emphasis original), inquiry “[a]nd area grassy knoll between recreation us to consider the context of Although requires side faces inscribed a road. Id. road, away display.” far to be read it is too Pedestrians, picnick- motorists. рassing judg- in the opinion concurring In his however, using ers, park, others Breyer recog- ment Van Ten Com- unrestricted view of the have an nized, majority, as does the monument. as written on the mandments convey a his- the Ten Commandments can relationship be- message about the Nothing in the monument’s surrounds torical not the standards inscribed thereon religious message might tween suggests its concluded laws. Id. at 2869-70. He d’etre. and name- our Plaques its raison be to, “helps dis- of, relationship explain in thanks this plates in remembrance court- those tablets in dozens of park play adorn items various individuals Nation, including throughout a wall main entrance houses as well as however, States.” Supreme Court Unlike the park. majority expands upon recognition at 2870. messages of thanks and Id. these other refer- principle identifying on appear do not well-known of the Ten by any representations to and they accompanied ences symbols nor government property, text. The shares Library of the Na- including Congress, equip- with trees recreational environs Justice, Archives, Department re- none of this mise-en-scéne tional ment but Appeals of and District merely complement the Court an intent flects Columbia, the Unit- District of and drawing upon for the setting by secular otherwise See Representatives. House Ten Commandments’ secular ed States one of the n. 9 Rather, (noting additional monument’s also id. at 2862-63 applications. examрles). alone with religious stands stark against strength forces providing greatest Eagles’ purpose stated in

9. The way of Van “inspire all our life.” was to threaten and similar monuments J., (citation (Stevens, them, dissenting) at 2878 pause to view with a renewed S.Ct. who omitted). God, quotations which is our respect for the law of however, these examples, upon many Each of dis- principles, same basic tinguishable from the monument erected them in a places historical context not Many in earlier Plattsmouth. monuments apparent to those viewing Plattsmouth’s appeared at a time when inscriptions Instead, display. the Plattsmouth monu- “may variety not have foreseen the nothing ment stands alone with to recom- Nation even- religions for which this would religious message. mend it but its tually McCreary, a provide home.” Texas’s display of its Ten Command- (O’Connor, J., concurring). at monument, ments while much like Platts- Indeed, nearly century “for a after the mouth’s is surrounded sev- many Founding, acсepted the idea twenty- enteen additional monuments just nation, a religious America was not one historical “commemorating markers ” nation,’ ‘a but Christian ideals, ‘people, and events that com- (cit- (Stevens, J., dissenting) S.Ct. at 2886 ” pose Texan identity.’ ing Holy Trinity v. Church C.J., at (Rehnquist, plurality States, (citation omitted). opinion) Conversely, (1892)) (emphasis original), L.Ed. 226 Plattsmouth’s monument rests alone “many the Framers understood among park’s trees and recreational ‘religion’ word the Establishment Clause equipment in an area well-suited for reflec- to encompass only the various sects tion and meditation. id. at 2870 Christianity,” plu- id. at In today’s 2885. (not- (Breyer, judgment) longer accept ralistic America we no nor ing Texas’s monument was located in countenance such a narrow reading meditation). setting poorly suited for Its Establishment Clause. among location park equipment donated majorities’ The examples displays and plaques nameplates and various doеs inscriptions distinguishable are further be- nothing undeniably to mute its cause of the clear historical context message in favor the secular and histori- they appear. which example, For the oft messages cal described Breyer. tablets, image holding noted of Moses two Indeed, at Id. 2869-70. though not men- depicted on the frieze tioned the majority, Plattsmouth ex- courtroom, appears Court’s compa- pressly disavows claim “that it dis- ny lawgivers, seventeen both reli- рlays the monument in order show the gious McCreary, and secular. secular role and influence Ten Com- Similarly, depiction of Moses Appellant’s mandments.” Br. at 6. Ac- and the Ten Commandments on the cordingly, is nothing there reflected in the pediment Court’s east also finds him the context of this to suggest company of renowned figures. Id. Plattsmouth intended a secular or histori- at 2741 displays n. 23. Such longstanding cal message predominate. See id. at of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms public buildings harken back ato time majority distinction, overwhelming majority when the eschews this of Ameri- belief, espoused suggesting location, cans Christian and now monument’s ten Hall, serve as blocks from City a historical reminder of those obviates the need to relationship times and the contextualize religious message. between the This Decalogue goes beyond and our laws. well reasoning advanced announced these depictions is Van Orden’s fractured decision. At undeniаble, most, but long their Orden holds Ten Command- proximity to secular institutions ‍‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‍founded display, incorporated ments into a larger and his- monuments display thirty-eight America, UNITED STATES markers, constitutional survive

torical will Appellee, range it broad because reflects attack Plaintiff — religious ideals. Van Orden secular and protection did extend constitutional not CLOUD, Fritz Arlo LOOKING displays with no sec-

Ten Commandments Appellant. Defendant — message. ular or historical 04-2173. No. reduce Establish- Nor did Van Orden of Appeals, United States Court simple to a jurisprudence ment Clause Eighth Circuit. enough It is not mathematical calculation. Jan. 2005. Submitted: stood Plattsmouth’s monument has Aug. Filed: years in thirty-five than Memori- more Rehearing Rehearing En Banc contextualizing pres- al Park. Without the indicia of Denied Oct. messages of other some ence nothing is significance, there historical singular purpose its

free the Be- advancing religious message. application appar- is no such broader

cause offered—the mon- for that matter

ent —or violates the Establishment Clause.

ument reasons, I reject the foregoing

For the

majorities’ conclusion acknowledge simply “to the role

stands heritage.” in our Nation’s more than acknowl-

monument does much

edge religion; it is a command from requires on how he

Judeo-Christian God say a

his to live. To followers

inscribed with the Ten Commandments patriotic symbols

and various “acknowledgment more nothing than an their religion” role of diminishes and belies the words

sanctity to believers I dissent. respectfully

themselves.

Case Details

Case Name: ACLU Nebraska Foundation v. City of Plattsmouth

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 19, 2005

Citation: 419 F.3d 772

Docket Number: 02-2444

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.