2008-03-31 23:35:57 -

- The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), focusing on constitutional law, said today it is pleased the Supreme Court of the United States has decided to review a lower court decision that could force local governments across the country either to dismantle a host of monuments, memorials, and other displays including long-standing patriotic and historical displays or else

let all comers install privately owned monuments or displays, regardless of content. The Supreme Court today granted ACLJ's Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (No. 07-665).

"We're delighted that the Supreme Court agreed to take this critical case - it's exactly what we were hoping for," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which represents Pleasant Grove in the case. "The Supreme Court is faced with a dramatic opportunity: preserve sound precedent involving the well-established distinction between government speech and private speech - or permit a twisted interpretation of the Constitution to create havoc in cities and localities across America. The lower court decision - if left unchecked - would ultimately force local governments to remove long-standing and well established patriotic, religious and historical displays. The lower court decision misses a key distinction between government speech and private speech. The government has to be neutral toward private speech, but it does not have to be neutral in its own speech. The Tenth Circuit confused this rule when it said private parties have a First Amendment right to put up the monuments of their choosing in a city park, unless the city takes away all other donated monuments. It is our hope the Supreme Court steps in to correct this flawed reasoning."

In August 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit split 6-6 over a request for the full appeals court to rehear two cases involving demands that the Utah cities of Pleasant Grove City and Duchesne City erect monuments containing the "Seven Aphorisms" of a group called Summum. The federal appeals court had ruled in favor of Summum in both cases, saying the group could insist upon erecting its own "Seven Aphorisms" monument in the city parks because the cities already displayed monuments of the Ten Commandments which were donated decades ago.

In its petition asking the high court to take the case involving Pleasant Grove (posted at www.aclj.org), the ACLJ says the 10th Circuit decision conflicts with decisions of other circuits, badly distorts First Amendment jurisprudence, and "will impose severe practical burdens on government entities . . ."

The ACLJ also contends that the lower court made a serious error confusing government speech with private speech. The ACLJ petition states:

"When private speakers have the right to use government property to speak, there is a speech forum. But when, as here, the donor cedes and the government accepts ownership and control of something from a private party, that 'something' is no longer private property. It becomes government property. And if it is a message-bearing 'something,' any communication thenceforth is government speech, not private speech. No 'forum' for private speech is created."

"Unlike in private speech cases, accepting a monument for permanent display as the government's own property does not require accepting other monuments in the name of content- or viewpoint-neutrality," the brief adds. "Nor does the government's acceptance of a donated monument require that a government park be turned into a cluttered junkyard of monuments contributed by all comers. In short, accepting a Statue of Liberty does not compel a government to accept a Statue of Tyranny."

The ACLJ contends that the decision by the appeals court "threatens to wreak havoc upon governments at every level and their ability to control the permanent physical occupation of government land."

The ACLJ urges the high court to take the case and contends that unless the lower court decision is overturned, cities and states will be forced to face a troubling choice - remove long-standing monuments - or permit any group to display any monument in public places. The brief notes that "a host of federal, state, and local government bodies are now sitting targets for demands that they grant 'equal access' to whatever comparable monuments a given group wishes to have installed, be it Summum's Seven Aphorisms, an atheist group's Monument to Freethought, or Rev. Fred Phelps's denunciation of homosexual persons."

Granting the ACLJ's request, the Supreme Court granted cert in the case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum and apparently is holding a companion case from Utah involving Duchesne City, Utah (Duchesne City v. Summum - No. 07-690).

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice specializes in constitutional law and is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.

For ACLJ
For print
Gene Kapp, 757-575-9520
or
For broadcast
Christy Lynn Wilson or Todd Shearer, 770-813-0000
Visit ACLJ Newsroom:
www.DeMossNewsPond.com/aclj