Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette
A Symbol Of Hatred Or Religious Display?, Impact, Further Readings
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board
Vincent J. Pinette
Allowing the display of a large wooden cross in front of the state capitol violates the Establishment Clause because it could be interpreted as an endorsement of religion.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Michael J. Renner
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Benson A. Wolman
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia (writing for the Court), David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
29 June 1995
Displaying a wooden cross in front of the Capital did not violate the Establishment Clause.
A religious symbol, even if displayed on or near a government building does not violate the Establishment Clause, which prohibits governments from sanctioning or endorsing a religion, if the facility is opened to any and all groups.
- McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961).
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1970).
- Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).
- Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
- County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).
- Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993).
- Carolyn Warmus Trials: 1991 1992 - Solomon Tells Of Unusual Marriage, Vigorous Defense Launched, Second Trial Results In Conviction
- Cammermeyer v. Aspin - Significance, A Military Discharge, Summary Judgment, Legitimate But Not Rational, Impact
- Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette - A Symbol Of Hatred Or Religious Display?
- Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette - Further Readings
- Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias