Petitioner
County of Allegheny
Respondent
American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That two separate holiday displays (involving a creche and a menorah, respectively) on public property do not violate the First Amendment's Establishmentof Religion Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Roslyn Litman
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Peter Buscemi
Justices for the Court
(Part one, against the creche display) Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens; (part two, for the menorah display) Harry A. Blackman (writing for the Court), Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehenquist,Antonin Scalia, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
(Part one, for the creche) Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist, AntoninScalia, Byron R. White; (part two, against the menorah) William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marhsall, John P. Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
3 July 1989
Decision
By different majorities, the Court banned the display of the creche but permitted the display of the menorah.
Significance
The Supreme Court found that Allegheny County violated the Establishment Clause by displaying a creche in the county courthouse because it had the unconstitutional effect of conveying government-endorsed Christianity. However, themenorah, which was displayed in the City-County Building along with a Christmas tree, was permissible because it was displayed in such a way as to be viewed as a secular symbol, given "its particular, physical setting." This decision established that the main factor in determining the constitutionality of public holiday decorations is the context in which they are displayed.
During every Christmas holiday season since 1981, a creche donated by the Holy Name Society, a Roman Catholic organization, had been on display in front of the grand staircase inside the Allegheny County Courthouse. The creche borea plaque attributing its donation to the Holy Name Society. Along with figures of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, shepherds, animals, and wise men, the creche depicted an angel bearing a banner that said, "Gloria in Excelsis Deo!" which translates as "Glory to God in the highest." The creche stood alone in front of the staircase as the main element on display, surrounded by poinsettias and two evergreen trees, as placed there by the county. Santa Claus figures and other Christmas decorations were arranged around the courthouse, but no other secular decorations were displayed near the staircase.
The county used the creche as the setting for its Christmas carol program, which also included other songs. From 3 December to 23 December 1986, high school choirs and other musical groups performed a two-hour program each weekdayat lunchtime. The county issued a press release identifying the program as acounty-sponsored event and connected the program to the creche.
A block away from the courthouse, another holiday display involving a Christmas tree and menorah was placed in front of the City-County Building, a building owned jointly by the city of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. The 45 foottree was erected and decorated by city employees in keeping with a long-standing tradition. Next to the tree was an 18-foot menorah. The menorah was ownedby Chabad, a Jewish organization, but since 1982, it had been stored, displayed, and removed by the city each year. At the tree's base was a sign that bore the mayor's name and the message: "During this holiday season, the city ofPittsburgh salutes liberty. Let these festive lights remind us that we are the keepers of the flame of liberty and our legacy of freedom." The tree was up from 17 December 1986 to 13 January 1987 and the menorah from 22 December 1986 to 13 January 1987.
On 10 December 1986 the Pittsburgh chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and seven local residents filed suit in Federal District Court toenjoin Allegheny County from displaying the creche and the city of Pittsburghfrom displaying the menorah. The ACLU claimed that displays such as the creche and the menorah violate the Establishment of Religion Clause of the FirstAmendment.
On 8 May 1987 the district court denied the ACLU's claim. Citing Lynch v.Donnelly (1984), a landmark Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional mandate for religious accommodation, the court held that the creche and the menorah did not violate the Establishment Clause. The court concluded that the displays had a secular purpose and did not create an excessive entanglement of government with religion.
The ACLU filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals. A divided panel of the court of appeals reversed the district court's decision. The court statedthat despite being located near secular decorations, "neither the creche northe menorah can reasonably be deemed to have been subsumed by a larger display of non-religious items." The displays, the court found, had the impermissible effect of endorsing religion, and thus, violated the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided the case on 3 July 1989. By different majorities the Court found that the menorah did not advance religion in such a way as to violate the Establishment of Religion Clause, but the creche did violate the Establishment Clause because the county, in associating with the display, wasnot merely acknowledging Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, but celebratingand promoting a holiday with a blatant Christian message.
Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, said that the menorah was displayed in such a way as not to endorse religion but was used to create a secularwinter holiday setting, of which Christmas and Chanukah are both part. Chanukah--for which the menorah is the primary symbol--has both religious and secular connotations. Although the menorah is a symbol with religious meaning, Chanukah does not have a preeminently secular symbolic equivalent, as Christmashas with Santa Claus and reindeer. Blackmun said, "[I]t would be a form of discrimination against Jews to allow Pittsburgh to celebrate Christmas as a cultural tradition while simultaneously disallowing the city's acknowledgment ofChanukah as a contemporaneous cultural tradition."
In her opinion, Justice O'Connor expressed the view that the creche display was different than the one in Lynch v. Donnelly. In Lynch the creche was on private property and included traditional secular holiday symbols, while the Allegheny creche had the unconstitutional effect of conveying government-endorsed Christianity. She further concluded that the menorah, in its"particular physical setting" did not have the effect of endorsing religion,regardless of whether the menorah is considered a religious or secular symbol. She argued that the display conveyed "a message of pluralism and freedom to choose one's own beliefs."
Justice Kennedy, along with Justices White and Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissented on the creche decision. Kennedy wrote: "This view of the Establishment Clause reflects an unjustified hostility toward religion, a hostility inconsistent with our history and our precedents . . . The creche displayis constitutional, and, for the same reasons, the display of a menorah by thecity of Pittsburgh is permissible as well."
The Controversy Continues
The debate over religious displays in Pittsburgh, as well as in the rest of the United States, has not ended since the Allegheny decision. In 1996The Ku Klux Klan petitioned to display a cross bearing the Klan's insignia inthe county courthouse courtyard. The petition came just five days after a coalition of local black clergy asked the commissioners for permission to erecta creche in the courthouse courtyard. Allegheny County Commissioner Bob Cranmer withdrew his support of the creche display after receiving the Klan's request. Cranmer said, "I think it is necessary that we take a prudent positionand not permit the use of the courtyard as a public forum."
Related Cases
County of Allegheny
Respondent
American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That two separate holiday displays (involving a creche and a menorah, respectively) on public property do not violate the First Amendment's Establishmentof Religion Clause.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Roslyn Litman
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Peter Buscemi
Justices for the Court
(Part one, against the creche display) Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens; (part two, for the menorah display) Harry A. Blackman (writing for the Court), Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehenquist,Antonin Scalia, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
(Part one, for the creche) Anthony M. Kennedy, William H. Rehnquist, AntoninScalia, Byron R. White; (part two, against the menorah) William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marhsall, John P. Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
3 July 1989
Decision
By different majorities, the Court banned the display of the creche but permitted the display of the menorah.
Significance
The Supreme Court found that Allegheny County violated the Establishment Clause by displaying a creche in the county courthouse because it had the unconstitutional effect of conveying government-endorsed Christianity. However, themenorah, which was displayed in the City-County Building along with a Christmas tree, was permissible because it was displayed in such a way as to be viewed as a secular symbol, given "its particular, physical setting." This decision established that the main factor in determining the constitutionality of public holiday decorations is the context in which they are displayed.
During every Christmas holiday season since 1981, a creche donated by the Holy Name Society, a Roman Catholic organization, had been on display in front of the grand staircase inside the Allegheny County Courthouse. The creche borea plaque attributing its donation to the Holy Name Society. Along with figures of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, shepherds, animals, and wise men, the creche depicted an angel bearing a banner that said, "Gloria in Excelsis Deo!" which translates as "Glory to God in the highest." The creche stood alone in front of the staircase as the main element on display, surrounded by poinsettias and two evergreen trees, as placed there by the county. Santa Claus figures and other Christmas decorations were arranged around the courthouse, but no other secular decorations were displayed near the staircase.
The county used the creche as the setting for its Christmas carol program, which also included other songs. From 3 December to 23 December 1986, high school choirs and other musical groups performed a two-hour program each weekdayat lunchtime. The county issued a press release identifying the program as acounty-sponsored event and connected the program to the creche.
A block away from the courthouse, another holiday display involving a Christmas tree and menorah was placed in front of the City-County Building, a building owned jointly by the city of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. The 45 foottree was erected and decorated by city employees in keeping with a long-standing tradition. Next to the tree was an 18-foot menorah. The menorah was ownedby Chabad, a Jewish organization, but since 1982, it had been stored, displayed, and removed by the city each year. At the tree's base was a sign that bore the mayor's name and the message: "During this holiday season, the city ofPittsburgh salutes liberty. Let these festive lights remind us that we are the keepers of the flame of liberty and our legacy of freedom." The tree was up from 17 December 1986 to 13 January 1987 and the menorah from 22 December 1986 to 13 January 1987.
On 10 December 1986 the Pittsburgh chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and seven local residents filed suit in Federal District Court toenjoin Allegheny County from displaying the creche and the city of Pittsburghfrom displaying the menorah. The ACLU claimed that displays such as the creche and the menorah violate the Establishment of Religion Clause of the FirstAmendment.
On 8 May 1987 the district court denied the ACLU's claim. Citing Lynch v.Donnelly (1984), a landmark Supreme Court decision that established a constitutional mandate for religious accommodation, the court held that the creche and the menorah did not violate the Establishment Clause. The court concluded that the displays had a secular purpose and did not create an excessive entanglement of government with religion.
The ACLU filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals. A divided panel of the court of appeals reversed the district court's decision. The court statedthat despite being located near secular decorations, "neither the creche northe menorah can reasonably be deemed to have been subsumed by a larger display of non-religious items." The displays, the court found, had the impermissible effect of endorsing religion, and thus, violated the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided the case on 3 July 1989. By different majorities the Court found that the menorah did not advance religion in such a way as to violate the Establishment of Religion Clause, but the creche did violate the Establishment Clause because the county, in associating with the display, wasnot merely acknowledging Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, but celebratingand promoting a holiday with a blatant Christian message.
Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, said that the menorah was displayed in such a way as not to endorse religion but was used to create a secularwinter holiday setting, of which Christmas and Chanukah are both part. Chanukah--for which the menorah is the primary symbol--has both religious and secular connotations. Although the menorah is a symbol with religious meaning, Chanukah does not have a preeminently secular symbolic equivalent, as Christmashas with Santa Claus and reindeer. Blackmun said, "[I]t would be a form of discrimination against Jews to allow Pittsburgh to celebrate Christmas as a cultural tradition while simultaneously disallowing the city's acknowledgment ofChanukah as a contemporaneous cultural tradition."
In her opinion, Justice O'Connor expressed the view that the creche display was different than the one in Lynch v. Donnelly. In Lynch the creche was on private property and included traditional secular holiday symbols, while the Allegheny creche had the unconstitutional effect of conveying government-endorsed Christianity. She further concluded that the menorah, in its"particular physical setting" did not have the effect of endorsing religion,regardless of whether the menorah is considered a religious or secular symbol. She argued that the display conveyed "a message of pluralism and freedom to choose one's own beliefs."
Justice Kennedy, along with Justices White and Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissented on the creche decision. Kennedy wrote: "This view of the Establishment Clause reflects an unjustified hostility toward religion, a hostility inconsistent with our history and our precedents . . . The creche displayis constitutional, and, for the same reasons, the display of a menorah by thecity of Pittsburgh is permissible as well."
The Controversy Continues
The debate over religious displays in Pittsburgh, as well as in the rest of the United States, has not ended since the Allegheny decision. In 1996The Ku Klux Klan petitioned to display a cross bearing the Klan's insignia inthe county courthouse courtyard. The petition came just five days after a coalition of local black clergy asked the commissioners for permission to erecta creche in the courthouse courtyard. Allegheny County Commissioner Bob Cranmer withdrew his support of the creche display after receiving the Klan's request. Cranmer said, "I think it is necessary that we take a prudent positionand not permit the use of the courtyard as a public forum."
Related Cases
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
- Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
- Scarsdale v. McCreary, 471 U.S. 83 (1985).
- Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board et al. v. Pinette et al.,515 U.S. 753 (1995).
Further Readings
- Ahn, Laura. "This is Not a Creche." Yale Law Journal, April 1998, pp. 1969-1974.
- Hall, Kermit, ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford Press, 1992.
- Witt, Elder, ed. The Supreme Court A to Z. CQ's Encyclopedia of American Government. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1993.
User Comments Add a comment…