Constitutional Law

Justices Say No To 'Seven Aphorisms' In Utah Park

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a relatively unknown religious group cannot force Utah officials to place a monument in a public park that also houses a Ten Commandments monument.

In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the Court upheld the decision by officials in Pleasant Grove City, Utah to reject the Salt Lake City-based Summum’s request to install a permanent monument displaying its Seven Aphorisms in the city park that includes a string of the other monuments, including a Ten Commandments one. The Summum charged that city officials violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment by allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in the park but rejecting Summum’s Seven Aphorisms monument. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Summum, concluding that the public park was a forum for private speech.

The high court reversed the 10th Circuit’s decision, saying that the display of the monuments in the public park amounted to government speech, not private speech. The First Amendment “restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court in Pleasant Grove. Citing precedent, Alito wrote that, “A government entity has the right to ‘speak for itself.’” Alito continued that, “A government entity may exercise the same freedom to express its views when it receives assistance from private sources for the purpose of delivering a government-controlled message.”

Alito said government speech is not unlimited, and noted, for instance, that it must not run afoul of the First Amendment principle of the separation of church and state. In this case, however, Alito maintained that Pleasant City Grove was engaging in government speech not bound by the strictures of the First Amendment. “Governments,” Alito maintained, “have long used monuments to speak to the public. Since ancient times, kings, emperors, and other rulers have erected statutes of themselves to remind their subjects of their authority and power. Triumphal arches, columns, and other monuments have been built to commemorate military victories and sacrifices and other events of civic importance. A monument, by definition, is a structure that is designed as a means of expression. When a government entity arranges for the construction of a monument, it does so because it wishes to convey some thought or instill some feeling in those who see the structure.”

The Court’s finding for Pleasant Grove City relieves its officials from having to erect the Summum’s Seven Aphorisms monument in Pioneer Park. Summum says it is “an informal gathering of people who are seeking to understand themselves, to know who they truly are inside. Summum is not about doctrine, dogma, or beliefs, but about gaining the experience that will awaken us to the spirit within and to our place in the matrix of Creation’s formulations.” The group also says that the Seven Aphorisms were given to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the Ten Commandments, but that Moses subsequently destroyed that tablet. The group’s Seven Aphorisms monument would include statements such as, “Summum is Mind, thought; the universe is a mental creation,” and “Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.”

Last fall, ACS hosted a panel discussion on the Summum case. Video of that discussion is available here. Ayesha N. Khan, legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, examined the case for ACSblog. Her post is available here.

Full post as published by ACS Blog on February 25, 2009 (boomark / email).