Petitioner
Lynch, Mayor of Pawtucket, et al.
Respondent
Donnelly, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
A nativity scene should be allowed in public view.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
William F. McMahon
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Amato A. DeLuca
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
5 March 1984
Decision
The nativity scene was allowed to remain in view.
Significance
The case led many to believe that the Court was tempering its stand for the separation of church and state.
The case of Lynch v. Donnelly, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court 5 March 1984, became a landmark case regarding the separation of church and state.The case began as a dispute between a group of people who wanted a "creche"displayed in public and a group who did not. A "creche" is a nativity scene,a scene depicting the birth of Jesus Christ. The Supreme Court justices decided the "creche" displayed in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, did not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause outlinesthe government's role in the separation between church and state. Part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Establishment Clause clearlyprohibits any official establishment of a religion.
The case began when the city of Pawtucket put up its annual Christmas display. The display was put up in Pawtucket's downtown area as it had been for 40 years. The display contained other items besides the "creche." Among the otheritems were a Christmas tree, colored lights, Santa Claus's home, and animalfigures.
After the display containing all these items was erected, a group of people filed a lawsuit claiming the display violated the Establishment Clause. The group filing the suit included residents of Pawtucket, members of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the union itself.
The decision in the case in district court commanded the city of Pawtucket not to include the "creche." The district court agreed that by including the "creche" the city had violated the Establishment Clause. The next stop in the appeals process was the First Circuit Court of Appeals. This court also commanded Pawtucket to remove the "creche," therefore upholding the decision of thedistrict court.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Lynch v. Donnelly, reversed the two lower court decisions, deciding to allow Pawtucket to display the "creche."The "creche" the High Court said, did not violate the Constitution's Establishment Clause.
When the 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court was announced, the New York Times described it as a considerable modification of the existing linebetween church and state. Linda Greenburg of the New York Times wrote,"it significantly shifted the boundary in favor of religion."
In previous precedent setting cases regarding challenges to the Constitution's Establishment Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court had voted against religion. The Court's apparent accommodation of religion contrasted with its previous decisions. In 1971, in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, a practice was declared unconstitutional because it did not have a legitimate non-religious purpose.
The "Lemon Test"--a three part test used by Supreme Court justices to aid them in deciding if a practice had violated the Establishment Clause--came out of Lemon v. Kurtzman. However, in Lynch v. Donnelly, Chief Justice Burger stated that his court did not consider the "Lemon Test" as essential as other justices had in the past.
Instead of using the Lemon Test as a barometer in their decision making process, several justices in Burger's Court substituted a new test. Their test wassimply the answer to the question of whether the Pawtucket practice of displaying the "creche" posed a real danger to the establishment of a state church. In other words, as Justice O'Connor stated at the time, whether the government in question intends to endorse or is perceived to be endorsing a particular religion.
Justices Burger, White, Powell, Rehnquist, and O'Connor opined that the U.S.Constitution commands that there should not only be tolerance of all religions, but accommodation of all religions. The Constitution, these five justicesdeclared, forbids hostility toward any religion. In voting to reverse the twolower court decisions, these five Justices asserted that Pawtucket has not advanced any religion. The display, they affirmed, merely celebrates a holidayrecognized by Congress as a national tradition.
Although five of the nine Supreme Court justices believed the "creche" did not pose any real danger, four justices dissented. Among the four was Justice Brennan. Brennan said that the "maintenance and display at public expense of asymbol as distinctively sectarian as a creche simply cannot be squared withour prior cases."
Brennan and the other dissenters, Justices Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, said the "creche" was a recreation of an event that is at the center of Christianity. And, the dissenting justices concurred, Pawtucket's action in displaying the "creche" was a step toward establishing a religious preference. In summary, the dissenting justices agreed with the American Civil Liberties Unionand the National Council of Churches that the display violated the Establishment Clause. Still, the Supreme Court's decision did not totally clarify theHigh Court's position on the Establishment Clause. Uncertainty was maintainedbecause the justices reviewed Lynch v. Donnelly while taking into consideration that there were other items in the holiday display. Brennan and the other dissenters noted that it was not clear which way the Supreme Court would have voted had the display only contained the "creche."
Five years later, in a similar case the Supreme Court would rule differently.In 1989, in County of Allegheny v. ACLU the Supreme Court ruled thata "creche" displayed in a public building without anything else present in the display violated the Establishment Clause. Still, Lynch v. Donnellyis significant because it suggested an allowance for some religious adjustment in the concept of the separation of church and state.
Related Cases
Public Religious Displays
Seasonal religious displays on public property, such as a manger scene at Christmas, are often challenged in court on the grounds that they depict religious matter and therefore violate the concept of separation of church and state. Proponents say that the displays do not violate the First Amendment becausethey are not coercive in nature and do not pressure anyone to hold a specific religious belief. Those who oppose the displays counter that religious symbols do not have a place on public government property. When it comes to Supreme Court rulings on the issue, the Court has taken a middle ground. The Courthas upheld religious symbols in a holiday display if the display includes symbols from other religions or nonreligious items.
Sources
Hirsley, Michael. "Religious Display Needs Firm Court."Chicago Tribune, 20 December 1991.
Lynch, Mayor of Pawtucket, et al.
Respondent
Donnelly, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
A nativity scene should be allowed in public view.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
William F. McMahon
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Amato A. DeLuca
Justices for the Court
Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
5 March 1984
Decision
The nativity scene was allowed to remain in view.
Significance
The case led many to believe that the Court was tempering its stand for the separation of church and state.
The case of Lynch v. Donnelly, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court 5 March 1984, became a landmark case regarding the separation of church and state.The case began as a dispute between a group of people who wanted a "creche"displayed in public and a group who did not. A "creche" is a nativity scene,a scene depicting the birth of Jesus Christ. The Supreme Court justices decided the "creche" displayed in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, did not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause outlinesthe government's role in the separation between church and state. Part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Establishment Clause clearlyprohibits any official establishment of a religion.
The case began when the city of Pawtucket put up its annual Christmas display. The display was put up in Pawtucket's downtown area as it had been for 40 years. The display contained other items besides the "creche." Among the otheritems were a Christmas tree, colored lights, Santa Claus's home, and animalfigures.
After the display containing all these items was erected, a group of people filed a lawsuit claiming the display violated the Establishment Clause. The group filing the suit included residents of Pawtucket, members of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the union itself.
The decision in the case in district court commanded the city of Pawtucket not to include the "creche." The district court agreed that by including the "creche" the city had violated the Establishment Clause. The next stop in the appeals process was the First Circuit Court of Appeals. This court also commanded Pawtucket to remove the "creche," therefore upholding the decision of thedistrict court.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Lynch v. Donnelly, reversed the two lower court decisions, deciding to allow Pawtucket to display the "creche."The "creche" the High Court said, did not violate the Constitution's Establishment Clause.
When the 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court was announced, the New York Times described it as a considerable modification of the existing linebetween church and state. Linda Greenburg of the New York Times wrote,"it significantly shifted the boundary in favor of religion."
In previous precedent setting cases regarding challenges to the Constitution's Establishment Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court had voted against religion. The Court's apparent accommodation of religion contrasted with its previous decisions. In 1971, in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, a practice was declared unconstitutional because it did not have a legitimate non-religious purpose.
The "Lemon Test"--a three part test used by Supreme Court justices to aid them in deciding if a practice had violated the Establishment Clause--came out of Lemon v. Kurtzman. However, in Lynch v. Donnelly, Chief Justice Burger stated that his court did not consider the "Lemon Test" as essential as other justices had in the past.
Instead of using the Lemon Test as a barometer in their decision making process, several justices in Burger's Court substituted a new test. Their test wassimply the answer to the question of whether the Pawtucket practice of displaying the "creche" posed a real danger to the establishment of a state church. In other words, as Justice O'Connor stated at the time, whether the government in question intends to endorse or is perceived to be endorsing a particular religion.
Justices Burger, White, Powell, Rehnquist, and O'Connor opined that the U.S.Constitution commands that there should not only be tolerance of all religions, but accommodation of all religions. The Constitution, these five justicesdeclared, forbids hostility toward any religion. In voting to reverse the twolower court decisions, these five Justices asserted that Pawtucket has not advanced any religion. The display, they affirmed, merely celebrates a holidayrecognized by Congress as a national tradition.
Although five of the nine Supreme Court justices believed the "creche" did not pose any real danger, four justices dissented. Among the four was Justice Brennan. Brennan said that the "maintenance and display at public expense of asymbol as distinctively sectarian as a creche simply cannot be squared withour prior cases."
Brennan and the other dissenters, Justices Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, said the "creche" was a recreation of an event that is at the center of Christianity. And, the dissenting justices concurred, Pawtucket's action in displaying the "creche" was a step toward establishing a religious preference. In summary, the dissenting justices agreed with the American Civil Liberties Unionand the National Council of Churches that the display violated the Establishment Clause. Still, the Supreme Court's decision did not totally clarify theHigh Court's position on the Establishment Clause. Uncertainty was maintainedbecause the justices reviewed Lynch v. Donnelly while taking into consideration that there were other items in the holiday display. Brennan and the other dissenters noted that it was not clear which way the Supreme Court would have voted had the display only contained the "creche."
Five years later, in a similar case the Supreme Court would rule differently.In 1989, in County of Allegheny v. ACLU the Supreme Court ruled thata "creche" displayed in a public building without anything else present in the display violated the Establishment Clause. Still, Lynch v. Donnellyis significant because it suggested an allowance for some religious adjustment in the concept of the separation of church and state.
Related Cases
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
- County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).
Public Religious Displays
Seasonal religious displays on public property, such as a manger scene at Christmas, are often challenged in court on the grounds that they depict religious matter and therefore violate the concept of separation of church and state. Proponents say that the displays do not violate the First Amendment becausethey are not coercive in nature and do not pressure anyone to hold a specific religious belief. Those who oppose the displays counter that religious symbols do not have a place on public government property. When it comes to Supreme Court rulings on the issue, the Court has taken a middle ground. The Courthas upheld religious symbols in a holiday display if the display includes symbols from other religions or nonreligious items.
Sources
Hirsley, Michael. "Religious Display Needs Firm Court."Chicago Tribune, 20 December 1991.
User Comments Add a comment…