Academic

Pleasant Grove v. Summum

By Calvin Massey

The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in this case.  In brief, the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah has accepted donations of various artifacts (only from local organizations) that are germane to the city's pioneer history for display in Pioneer Park, a city park.  Among those items is a stone monument displaying the Ten Commandments.  An unusual sect, the Summum, offered to donate a stone monument bearing the Seven Aphorisms for display in Pioneer Park.  (The Summum think that Moses carried the Ten Commandments and the Seven Aphorisms down from Mt Sinai.  A sample of the aphorisms:  "Everything moves.")  The city turned down the offer, citing its rules that donations be from local organizations (which the Summum are not), and that the items displayed in the park be germane to the city's pioneer history.  The Summum sued, claiming content and view point based speech discrimination.  The Tenth Circuit agreed with the Summum. 

Pleasant Grove argues that, while the park itself is apublic forum its criteria for deciding what the city chooses to display in the park is not a public forum.  The city also contends that once an donation is accepted and displayed it becomes government speech, and governments are free to say what they please.  According to the SCOTUSblog summary of the oral argument the Justices appear to be troubled by the necessity of finding the right doctrinal pigeonhole.  A "tyranny of labels," says Justice Kennedy.   Here's my take on this:  In terms of what a city chooses to display in its park, the park functions much like a public library or art museum.  Governments are entitled to make content-based choices about what books, art works, or monuments they seek to acquire and display.  When the work has a religious element, there is a question of whether the governmental acquisition and display is a forbidden endorsement of religion.  So as a free speech matter, Pleasant Grove should win.  I would need to know more about the circumstances of the Ten Commandments monument to opine on whether it is within or without the protection of Van Orden v. Perry. 

UPDATE:  Here is a transcript of the oral argument.

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on November 12, 2008 (boomark / email).