Amicus Curiae Brief — City of Elkhart v. Books

4 Supreme Court, U.S.

FILE®

No. 00-1407 APR 12 2001

IN THE OFFICE Ff Ta? GLERK

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

¢

CITY OF ELKHART,

Petitioner,

Vv.

WILLIAM A. BOOKS AND MICHAEL SUETKAMP.

+

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

o

BRIEF FOR THE STATES OF ALABAMA,

MISSISSIPPI, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA,

OHIO, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TEXAS, AND THE

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA

ISLANDS, AS AMICI CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

S

BILL PRYOR

Attorney General of Alabama

MARGARET L. FLEMING

CHARLES B. CAMPBELL*

Counsel of Record *

Assistant Attorneys General

-_

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATE OF ALABAMA

11 South Union Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0152

(334) 242-7300

Counsel for Amicus Curiae,

the State of Alabama

(Additional Counsel on Inside Front Cover)

Additional Counsel for Amici Curiae

MIKE MOORE

Attorney General of

Mississippi

P.O. Box 220

Jackson, MS 39205

(601) 359-3796

DON STENBERG

Attorney General of

Nebraska

Department of Justice

2115 State Capitol

Lincoln, NE 68509

(402) 471-2682

WAYNE STENEHJEM

Attorney General of North

Dakota

600 E. Boulevard Avenue

Bismarck, ND 58505-0040

(701) 328-2210

BETTY D. MONTGOMERY

Attorney General of Ohio

30 East Broad Street

17th Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 466-4940

CHARLES M. CONDON

Attorney General of South

Carolina

P.O. Box 11549

Columbia, SC 29211

(803) 734-3970

JOHN CORNYN

Attorney General of Texas

P.O. Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

(512) 463-2100

HERBERT D. SOLL

Attorney General of the

Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands

Caller Box 10007

Saipan, MP 96950

(670) 664-2341

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does the Establishment Clause require a city to

remove from city property a 40-year-old monument

containing the text of the Ten Commandments which

is part of a larger civic display?

2. Do respondents, whose “injury” consists of no more

than the psychological consequences allegedly

produced by observation of conduct with which they

disagree, have standing under Article III to bring an

Establishment Clause challenge?

‘i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions Presented .............:::ssscsssseseeeereseensssensseeeseeeenees i

Table of Cantante .ccccccccccerssecensecsctentennteemaenee ii

Tabhe of Anttneetthe® .ccosccsccsccsesecssentensemienenniee iii

Brief for Amici Curiae in Support of

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.....................ccccceeeeeeeees 1

Entewost of Ametad Caste ccccccccoscesscsscesccnepesecseninensnsaamnnnaa 1

Grmnenasy 66 AGIROR ..00ccccesccscscsssccsssesnsdianenemamenaal 2

pe eee 2

I. This Case Presents an Appropriate Opportu-

nity To Clarify the Meaning and Scope of Stone

V. GORGE coccecersessccresssstemmimmae 4

A. The Holding in Stone v. Graham Is Limited

to the Context of Public School Classroome............ 4

B. The Religious Context of the Ten

Commandments Does Not Diminish Their

Bocuier TRGTORIGED. ccccccscseyeime 6

II. A Decision in this Case Would Provide Much-

Needed Guidance for Numerous Cases Pending

Below and for Innumerable Similar Situations. .......... 9

CaM SB IGI GI ccccccccssccccececensecesensenenqsensenesenenenee 13

5 ee ee

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases:

ACLU v. McCreary County,

96 F. Supp. 2d 679 (E.D. Ky. 2000)......0.....0000000ccc. 10

ACLU v. Pulaski County,

96 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. Ky. 2000)......00..000.0000000000.. 10

Adland v. Russ,

107 F. Supp. 2d 782 (E.D. Ky. 2000),

appeal pending, No. 00-6139 (6th Cir.

EE 10

Alabama Freethought Association v. Moore,

893 F. Supp. 1522 (N.D. Ala. 1995) ....000000.0.0on. ll

Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp.,

475 F.2d 29 (10th Cir.),

cert. denied, 414 U.S. 879 (1973) .........cccccccccccccccceeeeeeees 6

Doe v. Harlan County School District,

96 F. Supp. 2d 667 (E.D. Ky. 2000)........0..0..0.0000000000.. 10

Edelman v. Jordan,

Ee 6

Edwards v. Aguillard,

a 8

Ex parte State ex rel. James,

rT ll

Gray v. Mississippi,

CEE 6

Hohn v. United States,

EEE 5-6

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

Indiana Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. O'Bannon,

110 F. Supp. 2d 842 (S.D. Ind. 2000),

appeal pending, No. 00-3011 (7th Cir.

I i)

Kimbley v. Lawrence County,

119 F. Supp. 2d 856 (S.D. Ind. 2000)...................:cccce0es 9

Lemon v. Kurtzman,

a Ba, Ba Oe cecceccnicentnettceneememeiine 4

Lynch v. Donnelly,

I 7, 11-12

Mueller v. Allen,

GO 9

State v. Freedom from Religion Prmneaien, Inc.,

898 P.2d 1013 (Colo. 1995),

cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1111 (1996) ............................. 8

Stone v. Graham,

a passim

Wallace v. Jaffree,

O_O 9

Statute:

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 158.178(2) (1996) .................ccce ae 5

Other Authorities:

147 Cong. Rec. H923 (daily ed. Mar. 14, 2001).................. 2

147 Cong. Rec. $3222 (daily ed. Mar. 30, 2001)................. 2

v

_ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page(s)

G.A. Res. 243, U.N. GAOR, 55th Sess.,

U.N. Doc. A/RES/55/243 (2001) oo.oo.ooocecccccccccccecceececeeeces 2

H.R. Con. Res. 52, 107th Cong. (2001) ...0...... o-oo 3

S. Con. Res. 30, 107th Cong. (2001) 0.00... cccccccccccccceeeee: 2-3

Stone v. Graham, No. 80-321:

eT 5, 7

a 5

Reply Br. to Pet. for Cert. ....0.00000.0cccccccccccecceecceeceeceeeee. 6

‘

1

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

The States of Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, North

Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

(collectively “the amici States”) respectfully submit this

brief as amici curiae pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

37.4. The amici States submit this brief in support of the

petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit filed in this case by the

City of Elkhart, Indiana.

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

The States and Commonwealth joining in this brief as

amici curiae have a profound interest in protecting the

free-speech rights and religious liberties of their citizens.

The amici States also have an interest in providing their

public officials clear, reliable guidance for use in

addressing issues concerning the presence of monuments,

plaques, and other items with religious references on

public property. Finally, the amici States do not wish to

see their public buildings and lands defaced by civil

litigation based upon a misinterpretation of the

Establishment Clause. The amici States thus have an

interest in seeing this case resolved in a fashion that

respects their citizens’ religious liberties while affording

their public officials sufficient guidance to manage public

buildings and lands appropriately.

¢

2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case provides an appropriate opportunity to

clarify the meaning and scope of this Court's 5-4 per

curiam decision in Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980).

Sup. Ct. R. 10(c). It also affords an opportunity to provide

further guidance to public officials on the permissible

acknowledgment of religious aspects of this Nation's

history and culture on public grounds. Id. Finally, a

decision in this case would resolve a split in the circuits

and between a federal court of appeals and a state

supreme court on this particular issue, providing much-

needed guidance for numerous cases pending below. Sup.

Ct. R. 10(a). For these reasons, the petition for a writ of

certiorari should be granted.

ARGUMENT

In Bamiyan, Afghanistan, the Taliban regime recently

completed the destruction of two giant, historic

monuments of the Buddha that reflected Afghanistan’s

pre-Islamic culture. 147 Cong. Rec. H923 (daily ed. Mar.

14, 2001) (statement of Rep. Schiff). The leader of the

Taliban, Mullah Mohammad Omar, condemned the

Bamiyan Buddhas as “shrines of infidels” and claimed

that they violated the tenets of Islam. 147 Cong. Rec.

$3222 (daily ed. Mar. 30, 2001) (statement of Sen. Akaka)

(noting that the Taliban’s actions violated the teachings of

Islam and quoting Qur'an 109:6). Virtually the entire

world has risen to condemn the Taliban’s intolerant

iconoclasm. See G.A. Res. 243, U.N. GAOR, 55th Sess.,

U.N. Doc. A/RES/55/243 (2001);' see also S. Con. Res. 30

' More than 90 nations sponsored the United Nations General

Assembly's resolution condemning the destruction of the Bamiyan

statues, including Afghanistan, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria,

3

107th Cong. (2001); H.R. Con. Res. 52, 107th Cong.

(2001).

At first blush, the standing Buddhas of Bamiyan,

Afghanistan, might seem to have little in common with a

lawsuit concerning a Ten Commandments monument in

Elkhart, Indiana. Upon closer inspection, however, the

two situations have disturbing similarities. The Taliban

insisted on viewing the standing Buddhas in purely

religious terms, as “shrines of infidels” for idol worship,

thus divorcing them from their historical and cultural

context and ignoring their artistic attributes. Based upon

this narrow view, the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas to

remove them from public sight.

In this case, Respondents similarly insist that the Ten

Commandments be viewed from a purely religious

perspective, minimizing their historical, cultural, moral,

and literary qualities. Based upon this narrow view of

the Decalogue, respondents convinced the Court of

Appeals that the display of the Ten Commandments in

Elkhart served no secular purpose under the first prong of

Azerbaijan, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,

Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,

Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic,

Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia,

Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran,

Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Liberia, Liechtenstein,

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico,

Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal,

Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay,

Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,

Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone,

Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, South Africa,

Suriname, Sweden, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States,

Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia.

4

the Lemon? test, see Pet. App. at 16a—18a, and the

monument apparently must be removed if this Court does

not intervene.’ That respondents based their argument

in large part upon their interpretation of this Court’s 5-4

per curiam decision in Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39

(1980), is most disturbing of all.

I. THIS CASE PRESENTS AN APPROPRIATE

OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THE MEANING

AND SCOPE OF STONE V. GRAHAM.

A. The Holding in Stone v. Graham Is Limited to

the Context of Public School Classrooms.

In Stone v. Graham, a closely divided Court

“conclude[d] that Kentucky’s statute requiring the posting

of the Ten Commandments in public schoolrooms had no

secular legislative purpose, and is therefore unconstitu-

tional.” 449 U.S. at 41 (emphasis added). The statute in

Stone v. Graham specifically required each display of the

Ten Commandments to carry a notation referring to their

2 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612—13 (1971).

3 The panel majority below left it to the district court to formulate

an appropriate remedy. See Pet. App. at 24a—25a. In his dissent,

however, Judge Manion correctly observed that

there may be no remedy other than removal because the court

concludes that the City lacked a secular purpose justifying its

decision to leave undisturbed the Ten Commandments

monument. Thus, it appears that under the court’s reasoning,

no matter what Elkhart does to dilute the religious aspects of

the Ten Commandments, the monument will still be

unconstitutional because it fails Lemon’s first prong by not

having a secular purpose.

Id. at 50a—51la (Manion, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

(emphasis added).

—— <a

5

secular application. Id.; see Ky. Rev. Stat. § 158.178(2)

(1996). The state trial court concluded that the “avowed”

purpose of the statute was secular, albeit “self-serving.”

449 U.S. at 41. The trial court also concluded that “the

fact that the Ten Commandments spring from a religious

well does not in itself forever divorce their use for a

secular purpose.” App. to Pet. for Cert. at 38, Stone v.

Graham, No. 80-321.

This Court concluded, however, that “[t]he pre-

eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on

schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature.” 449 U.S.

at 41 (emphasis added). As the language italicized here

and in the preceding paragraph indicates, however, the

Court in Stone v. Graham was careful to limit its ruling to

the specific context of Kentucky's statute requiring the

Ten Commandments to be posted in public school class-

rooms. The petitioners in Stone v. Graham likewise

stressed the unique environment of the public schools.

Given “the compulsory attendance laws applicable to

students,” petitioners asserted that there would be “no

available method for a student offended by the posting of

the Ten Commandments to avoid confrontation with the

religious display.” Pet. for Cert. at 7, Stone v. Graham,

No. 80-321. Petitioners argued “that the posting of the

Commandments is an effort to inculcate particular

religious beliefs in a captive audience of public school

children who are compelled to attend ....” Id. at 13

(emphasis added).

As a per curiam decision rendered without briefing on

the merits or oral argument, the opinion in Stone v.

Graham does not explain the Court’s reasoning in great

detail. Although this Court is “less constrained to follow

precedent where ... the opinion was rendered without

full briefing or argument,” Hohn v. United States, 524

6

U.S. 236, 251 (1998),* it is clear that the decision in Stone

v. Graham was never meant to presumptively invalidate

all displays of the Decalogue on public property under the

“purpose” prong of the Lemon test. The decision was

limited to the unique context of public schools, where

attendance is compulsory, and a state statute requiring

the display to be present in each and every classroom.

Given the unique context of Stone v. Graham, the

Court of Appeals erred in applying it to invalidate the

display of the Ten Commandments monument in this

case. This case thus provides an appropriate opportunity

to clarify that Stone v. Graham does not presumptively

invalidate all displays of the Ten Commandments on

public property.

B. The Religious Context of the Ten

Commandments Does Not Diminish Their

Secular Importance.

This Court observed in Stone v. Graham that “[t]he

Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the

Jewish and Christian faiths.” 449 U.S. at 41. The Court

did not deny, however, that the Ten Commandments are

also “at once religious and secular, as, indeed, one would

expect considering the role of religion in our traditions.”

Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp., 475 F.2d 29, 33-34

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 879 (1973).5 In other

*“The Court, of course, at times has said that summary action

here does not have the same precedential effect as does a case decided

upon full briefing and argument.” Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648,

651 n.1 (1987) (citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 671 (1974)).

5 In his Reply Brief, respondent Graham quoted this excerpt from

Anderson. See Reply Br. to Pet. for Cert. at 6, Stone v. Graham, No.

80-321.

7

words, there was no suggestion in Stone v. Graham that

the Ten Commandments must presumptively be viewed

by the courts in exclusively religious terms in all situa-

tions. Indeed, the Court’s opinion suggests otherwise—

that the Ten Commandments could be included in “an

appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, compara-

tive religion, or the like.” 449 U.S. at 42; see also Lynch v.

Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 680 (1984) (“Focus exclusively on

the religious component of any activity would inevitably

lead to its invalidation under the Establishment

Clause.”).

This case presents an excellent illustration of the Ten

Commandments’ secular—i.e., historical, cultural, and

moral—importance. The Fraternal Order of Eagles

(“FOE”) distributed the Ten Commandments not in an

effort to proselytize or provide religious instruction, but in

an attempt to expose young people to recognized codes of

behavior. Pet. App. at 110a, 4 3 (Aff. of E.J. Ruegemer).

Indeed, the FOE rejected the idea until a nonsectarian

version of the Decalogue could be formulated. Jd. at 111a,

4 4; Pet. App. at 2a, 62a.

The City of Elkhart likewise never attempted to

proselytize or give any sort of religious instruction using

the Ten Commandments monument. There is no compul-

sion to look at the monument, as was the case in Stone v.

Graham, where there was “no available method to avoid

... the... display.” Pet. for Cert. at 7, Stone v. Graham,

No. 80-321. The monument is located outside the

Municipal Building, not inside a public school. Anyone

can avoid the Elkhart monument simply by looking the

other way or using a different door to the Municipal

Building. Passersby are free to look at the monument or

ignore it. One pedestrian may see the monument and

think “how nice,” another “how quaint,” a third “how

ridiculous,” and each is free to do so. They are not

8

compelled to study the Commandments or meditate on

them. With an inscription indicating that the monument

was a gift from the FOE, it is not even likely that ordi-

nary passersby would attribute the monument to the City

at all.

In short, in this case, the Ten Commandments need

not be viewed in exclusively religious terms. Here, they

serve a secular purpose as well—as a monument to

America’s cultural heritage—and contribute to a better

understanding of our roots as a people and society. The

Court of Appeals erred in ignoring these secular purposes

for displaying the Ten Commandments.

Both the Tenth Circuit and the Supreme Court of

Colorado have recognized the broader, secular importance

of the Ten Commandments in holding that FOE monu-

ments virtually identical to the monument at issue in this

case could constitutionally remain on public property.

Anderson, 475 F.2d at 33-34; State v. Freedom from

Religion Foundation, Inc., 898 P.2d 1013, 1014 (Colo.

1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1111 (1996). Although

Anderson predates Stone v. Graham, the Colorado deci-

sion directly addressed Stone v. Graham and recognized

the limited context of the holding in that case. Id. at

1022-23.

The Court of Appeals’ rejection of the City of Elkhart’s

legitimate secular purposes for retaining the Ten

Commandments monument in this case also raises

questions regarding the summary rejection, in Stone v.

Graham, of the secular purposes for displaying the Ten

Commandments as stated by the Kentucky legislature.

Although a court need not accept a “sham” statement of

secular purpose, Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578,

586—87 (1987), the Court of Appeals’ rejection of the City’s

articulated, legitimate secular purposes appears highly

questionable in the light of later decisions indicating this

ES Se Ge et es

Court’s “reluctance to attribute unconstitutional motives

to the states, particularly when a plausible secular

purpose for the state’s program may be discerned from

the face of the statute.” Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388,

394-95 (1983); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38,

74-75 (1985) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“If a legislature

expresses a plausible secular purpose for a moment of

silence statute in either the text or the legislative history,

or if the statute disclaims an intent to encourage prayer

over alternatives during a moment of silence, then courts

should generally defer to that stated intent.”) (footnotes

omitted).

II. A DECISION IN THIS CASE WOULD PROVIDE

MUCH-NEEDED GUIDANCE FOR NUMEROUS

CASES PENDING BELOW AND FOR INNUMER-

ABLE SIMILAR SITUATIONS.

There are currently a number of cases concerning

public displays of the Ten Commandments pending in the

lower courts. Published decisions in these cases include:

Kimbley v. Lawrence County, 119 F. Supp. 2d 856

(S.D. Ind. 2000) (granting preliminary injunction

prohibiting county from erecting Ten Commandments

monument on courthouse lawn);

Indiana Civil Liberties Union, Inc. v. O’Bannon, 110

F. Supp. 2d 842 (S.D. Ind. 2000) (granting preliminary

injunction prohibiting Governor of Indiana from

accepting Ten Commandments monument to be placed

on grounds of state capitol to replace previous FOE

monument that was vandalized by one of the plain-

tiffs), appeal pending, No. 00-3011 (7th Cir. filed Aug.

2, 2000);

10

Adland v. Russ, 107 F. Supp. 2d 782 (E.D. Ky. 2000)

(granting preliminary injunction prohibiting reloca-

tion of Ten Commandments monument to grounds of

state capitol), appeal pending, No. 00-6139 (6th Cir.

filed Aug. 25, 2000);

ACLU v. Pulaski County, 96 F. Supp. 2d 691 (E.D. Ky.

2000) (granting preliminary injunction against display

of Ten Commandments among other documents at

county courthouse);

ACLU v. McCreary County, 96 F. Supp. 2d 679 (E.D.

Ky. 2000) (granting preliminary injunction against

display of Ten Commandments among other docu-

ments at county courthouse); and

Doe v. Harlan County School District, 96 F. Supp. 2d

667 (E.D. Ky. 2000) (granting preliminary injunction

against display of Ten Commandments among other

documents at public school).

Additional pending cases include:

Modrovich v. Allegheny County, No. 2:01-CV-531

(W.D. Pa. filed Mar. 20, 2001) (challenging display of

Ten Commandments in county courthouse);

ACLU of Ohio Foundation v. Ashbrook, No. 1:01-CV-

556 (N.D. Ohio filed Mar. 8, 2001) (challenging

common pleas court judge’s display of Ten

Commandments on courtroom wall along with Bill of

Rights and Ohio motto);

King v. Richmond County, No. 00-CV-100 (S.D. Ga.

filed May 12, 2000) (challenging alleged depiction of

Ten Commandments in court seal); and

Baker v. Adams County, No. C-1-99-094 (S.D. Ohio

filed Feb. 9, 1999) (challenging school’s inclusion of

11

Ten Commandments in Foundations of American

Government display on school grounds).®

A decision in this case would provide much-needed

guidance for resolving these and similar cases. In addi-

tion to providing definitive guidance on the scope and

meaning of Stone v. Graham, this case would also afford

an opportunity to clarify the minimum requirements for

standing in such cases. See Valley Forge Christian

College v. Americans United for Separation of Church &

State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982); ACLU-NJ v. Township of

Wall, No. 00-2075, 2001 WL 320914 (3d Cir. Apr. 3, 2001)

(dismissing suit concerning holiday display for lack of

standing); Ala. Freethought Ass'n v. Moore, 893 F. Supp.

1522 (N.D. Ala. 1995) (dismissing suit against state judge

for displaying Ten Commandments in courtroom for lack

of standing); cf. Ex parte State ex rel. James, 711 So. 2d

952 (Ala. 1998) (dismissing suit against state judge for

displaying Ten Commandments in courtroom as nonjusti-

ciable). Such guidance is especially appropriate now—

before the federal courts are drawn further into a

campaign of secular iconoclasm to cleanse public

buildings and grounds of religious references.

Depictions of the Decalogue are not limited to the

grounds of state capitols or, as in this case, municipal

buildings. The Decalogue is depicted in a myriad of

public buildings, including the courtroom of this Court.

On the wooden doors to the courtroom, through which the

public and Bar enter, are carvings of tablets with the

roman numerals | through X. Similarly, the frieze of

ancient lawgivers near the ceiling of the courtroom

includes a depiction of Moses holding tablets representing

the Ten Commandments. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S.

* This list is not exhaustive.

12 13

at 677. One of the oldest courtrooms in the United States ‘CONCLUSION

is that of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the old is aps

state capitol in Harrisburg, which contains a large mural , The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States

depicting Moses and the Decalogue. The stairwell to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit should

Great Hall in the headquarters of the United States granted.

Department of Justice has a similar mural of Moses and Respectfully submitted,

the Ten Commandments. mas Paves

A decision in this case would assist public officials in Attorney General of Alabama

managing public property in a fashion that comports with |

the First Amendment. As the examples above MARGARET L. FLEMING

demonstrate, public buildings and grounds are often a CHARLES B. CAMPBELL*

place for monuments, plaques, and other displays meant Counsel of Record *

to commemorate significant historical events and people. Assistant Attorneys General

Frequently such monuments contain religious references, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

such as a quotation of or allusion to scripture. A decision | STATE OF ALABAMA

in this case would assist public officials in determining 11 South Union Street

how to treat such existing monuments and displays, and tgome

— whether to accept gifts of such items in the re a eeeeteenes

Counsel for Amicus Curiae,

the State of Alabama

April 12, 2001