VAN ORDEN v. PERRY

Legal Principle at Issue

Whether the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion or preferring one over another.

Action

Affirmed (includes modified). Petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition.

Facts/Syllabus

Among the 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the Texas State Capitol is a 6-foot-high monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments, but also including an eagle grasping the American flag, an eye inside of a pyramid, and two small tablets with what appears to be an ancient script are carved above the text. Below the text of the Ten Commandments are two Stars of David and the superimposed Greek letters Chi and Rho, which represent Christ. The legislative record surrounding the State's acceptance of the monument from the Eagles a national social, civic, and patriotic organization is limited to legislative journal entries. After the monument was accepted, the State selected a site for the monument based on the recommendation of the state organization responsible for maintaining the Capitol grounds. The Eagles paid the cost of erecting the monument, the dedication of which was presided over by two state legislators.

Petitioner Thomas Van Orden is a native Texan and a resident of Austin. At one time he was a licensed lawyer, having graduated from Southern Methodist Law School. Van Orden testified that, since 1995, he has encountered the Ten Commandments monument during his frequent visits to the Capitol grounds. His visits are typically for the purpose of using the law library in the Supreme Court building, which is located just northwest of the Capitol building. Six years after Van Orden began to encounter the monument frequently, he sued numerous state officials in their official capacities, seeking both a declaration that the monument's placement violates the Establishment Clause and an injunction requiring its removal. 

After a bench trial, the District Court held that the monument did not contravene the Establishment Clause. It found that the State had a valid secular purpose in recognizing and commending the Eagles for their efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency, and that a reasonable observer, mindful of history, purpose, and context would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the State endorsed religion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's holdings with respect to the monument's purpose and effect in 2003.