DOCSLIB.ORG

Brief for Respondents in Van Orden V. Perry, 03-1500

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

No. 03-1500 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- THOMAS VAN ORDEN, Petitioner, v. RICK PERRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS AND CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, ET AL., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- GREG ABBOTT R. TED CRUZ Attorney General of Texas Solicitor General Counsel of Record BARRY R. MCBEE First Assistant Attorney JOEL L. THOLLANDER General Assistant Solicitor General EDWARD D. BURBACH AMY WARR Deputy Attorney General Assistant Solicitor General for Litigation PAUL MICHAEL WINGET- DON R. WILLETT HERNANDEZ Deputy Attorney General Assistant Attorney General for Legal Counsel P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 936-1700 ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a monument bearing the Ten Command- ments, which has stood for over forty years and is sur- rounded by sixteen other monuments on the Texas Capitol Grounds, constitutes an impermissible establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Question Presented .................................................... i Table of Contents........................................................ ii Table of Authorities .................................................... v Statement of the Case.................................................... 1 Summary of Argument ............................................... 8 Argument.................................................................... 9 I. The Texas Ten Commandments Monument, in Context, Would Not Be Perceived as an Endorsement of Religion, and So Does Not Offend the Establishment Clause ................... 9 A. The Texas Monument, in Context and Considering its History, Would Not Be Perceived by the Reasonable Observer as Impermissibly Endorsing Religion. .......... 12 1. The context is not as Petitioner de- scribes .................................................. 12 2. The actual context does not convey en- dorsement ............................................ 16 a. The museum setting of the Capi- tol Grounds precludes a percep- tion of religious endorsement........ 16 b. The monument’s placement be- tween the Texas Capitol and Su- preme Court highlights its civic message.......................................... 20 3. The monument’s content is reasona- bly perceived to deliver a civic mes- sage, not a religious one ...................... 21 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page a. The monument contains civic symbols .......................................... 21 b. The monument’s text is not rea- sonably perceived to reflect offi- cial state policy.............................. 23 4. The monument’s history reinforces its civic message ....................................... 25 B. The Monument Serves the Secular Pur- poses of Honoring the Eagles and Ac- knowledging the Ten Commandments’ Historical Impact on the Development of Western Law and the Culture and Diver- sity of Texas .............................................. 25 1. A monument can be both religious and secular .......................................... 26 2. The monument was accepted in 1961 for the secular purpose of honoring the Eagles ............................................ 27 3. Returning the monument after Capi- tol renovations were complete, and turning it to face a newly constructed sidewalk, did not demonstrate an im- permissible religious purpose ............. 29 4. The monument also serves to ac- knowledge the Ten Commandments’ impact on law and culture................... 31 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page II. The “History and Ubiquity” of the Texas Ten Commandments Monument, and of Ten Commandments Monuments Across the Na- tion, also Demonstrate That the Texas Monument Does Not Violate the Establish- ment Clause..................................................... 37 A. The Monument’s History on the Grounds Justifies Its Continued Preservation ....... 38 B. Official Acknowledgment of the Ten Commandments’ Historical Impact Has Long Featured Prominently in our Na- tion’s Cultural Landscape......................... 39 III. The Texas Ten Commandments Monument Survives Any Other Test Applied to Assess Its Conformity with the Establishment Clause .............................................................. 43 A. The Monument Does Not Discriminate.... 43 B. The Monument Does Not Coerce .............. 45 C. The Texas Monument Is Not Unconstitu- tional Under Stone v. Graham ................... 45 IV. The Monument Presents a Far Lesser Threat of Establishment than Displays and Prac- tices Condoned by This Court ......................... 46 Conclusion .................................................................. 50 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) ..............................11 Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp., 475 F.2d 29 (CA10 1973) .................................................................... 33 Bertera’s Hopewell Foodland, Inc. v. Masters, 236 A.2d 197 (Pa. 1967) ........................................................ 34 Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292 (CA7 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1058 (2001) ................. 6, 28, 33, 40 Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) .............................................11, 12, 44 City of Elkhart v. Books, 121 S.Ct. 2209 (2001) ............................................................ 20, 28, 34, 44 Comm’rs of Johnston County v. Lacy, 93 S.E. 482 (N.C. 1917)...................................................................... 34 Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) .............................................................................. 26 County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) ....passim Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) ...................... 45 Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 124 S.Ct. 2301 (2004) ..............................................................passim Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) ...................................11 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) ........................ 26 Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703 (1985) ...............................................................................11 Freethought Soc’y v. Chester County, 334 F.3d 247 (CA3 2003) ................................................................ 33, 41 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001) .............................................................................. 12 Hardin v. State, 46 S.W. 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 1898)........ 34 Hollywood Motion Picture Equipment Co. v. Furer, 105 P.2d 299 (Cal. 1940)................................................. 34 King v. Richmond County, 331 F.3d 1271 (CA11 2003)................................................................................ 40 Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982)........................ 43, 44 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)........................... 45, 49 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) ......................... 10 Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984)......................passim Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)......... 37, 40, 48, 49 McCreary County v. ACLU, No. 03-1693......... 10, 33, 34, 40 Modrovich v. Allegheny County, 385 F.3d 397 (CA3 2004)................................................................................ 40 Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983)................................ 26 Penn. Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) ....................................................................... 39 Sch. Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) ..........................................................11, 36 Sch. Dist. of the City of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985) ................................................................11 State v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 898 P.2d 1013 (Colo. 1995) .............................. 6, 15, 25, 33, 44 Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) .............. 20, 36, 45, 46 Tex. Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989) ................11 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S.Ct. 346 (2004)............................ 8 Van Orden v. Perry, 2002 WL 32737462 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2002)...................................................................... 8 Van Orden v. Perry, 351 F.3d 173 (CA5 2003) .... 8, 25, 28, 36 Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) ................... 12, 26, 45 Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) .......................11, 24 STATUTES AND RULES 16 U.S.C. §461 ...................................................................... 1 20 U.S.C. §9172 .............................................................. 1, 17 Haw. Rev. Statutes §8-4 ..................................................... 49 S. Con. Res. 13, 105th Cong. (1997); H.R. Con. Res. 31, 105th Cong. (1997) ................................................... 42 TEX. ADMIN. CODE
Recommended publications
  • VAN ORDEN V. PERRY

    VAN ORDEN V. PERRY

    Cite as: 545 U. S. ____ (2005) 1 Opinion of REHNQUIST, C. J. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 03–1500 _________________ THOMAS VAN ORDEN, PETITIONER v. RICK PERRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS AND CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT [June 27, 2005] CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE THOMAS join. The question here is whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. We hold that it does. The 22 acres surrounding the Texas State Capitol con- tain 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemo- rating the “people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity.” Tex. H. Con. Res. 38, 77th Leg. (2001).1 The monolith challenged here stands 6-feet high and 3½-feet wide. It is located to the north of the Capitol building, —————— 1 The monuments are: Heroes of the Alamo, Hood’s Brigade, Confed- erate Soldiers, Volunteer Fireman, Terry’s Texas Rangers, Texas Cowboy, Spanish-American War, Texas National Guard, Ten Com- mandments, Tribute to Texas School Children, Texas Pioneer Woman, The Boy Scouts’ Statue of Liberty Replica, Pearl Harbor Veterans, Korean War Veterans, Soldiers of World War I, Disabled Veterans, and Texas Peace Officers.
  • Van Orden V. Perry, 351 F.3D 173, 176 (5Th Cir

    Van Orden V. Perry, 351 F.3D 173, 176 (5Th Cir

    2005 WL 227231 (U.S.) Page 1 II. GOVERNMENT CULTURAL EXPRESSION IN For Opinion See 125 S.Ct. 2854 , 125 S.Ct. 1240 , 125 THE UNITED STATES - HISTORICALLY, CUR- S.Ct. 346 RENTLY, AND INCREASINGLY - REFLECTS THE FULL RANGE OF AMERICAN RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY ... 6 U.S.,2005. A. Displays, Monuments, and Memorials ... 6 Supreme Court of the United States. Thomas VAN ORDEN, Petitioner, v. B. Commemorative Events and Holidays ... 9 Rick PERRY, in his Official Capacity as Governor of Texas and Chairman, State Preservation Board, et al., C. Flags, Seals, and Mottos ... 10 Respondents. No. 03-1500. D. Coins, Medals, and Stamps ... 12 January 31, 2005. E. Declarations and Resolutions ... 13 On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit III. THE REASONABLE OBSERVER SHOULD BE DEEMED AWARE OF THE FOREGOING ... 14 Brief Amicus Curiae of the Becket Fund for Reli- gious Liberty in Support of Respondents CONCLUSION ... 15 Anthony R. Picarello, Jr. *ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Counsel of Record Derek L. Gaubatz Cases Jared N. Leland The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys. v. Southworth, 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW 529 U.S. 217 (2000) ... 3 Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036-1735 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, (202) 955-0095 508 U.S. 520 (1993) ... 4 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Cf. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. *i TABLE OF CONTENTS Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 779-80 (1995) ... 14 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ... iii County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Un- ion Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S.
  • Mexican American Resource Guide: Sources of Information Relating to the Mexican American Community in Austin and Travis County

    Mexican American Resource Guide: Sources of Information Relating to the Mexican American Community in Austin and Travis County

    MEXICAN AMERICAN RESOURCE GUIDE: SOURCES OF INFORMATION RELATING TO THE MEXICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY IN AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY THE AUSTIN HISTORY CENTER, AUSTIN PUBLIC LIBRARY Updated by Amanda Jasso Mexican American Community Archivist September 2017 Austin History Center- Mexican American Resource Guide – September 2017 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Austin History Center is to provide customers with information about the history and current events of Austin and Travis County by collecting, organizing, and preserving research materials and assisting in their use so that customers can learn from the community’s collective memory. The collections of the AHC contain valuable materials about Austin and Travis County’s Mexican American communities. The materials in the resource guide are arranged by collection unit of the Austin History Center. Within each collection unit, items are arranged in shelf-list order. This guide is one of a series of updates to the original 1977 version compiled by Austin History staff. It reflects the addition of materials to the Austin History Center based on the recommendations and donations of many generous individuals, support groups and Austin History Center staff. The Austin History Center card catalog supplements the Find It: Austin Public Library On-Line Library Catalog by providing analytical entries to information in periodicals and other materials in addition to listing individual items in the collection with entries under author, title, and subject. These tools lead to specific articles and other information in sources that would otherwise be very difficult to find. It must be noted that there are still significant gaps remaining in our collection in regards to the Mexican American community.
  • The Supreme Court's Decisions on Ten Commandments Displays

    The Supreme Court's Decisions on Ten Commandments Displays

    The Supreme Court’s Decisions on Ten Commandments Displays McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry n June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court issued sharply divided decisions in two Ocases involving constitutional challenges to government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments. In McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (03–1693), a 5–4 majority held that two Kentucky counties had “pre- dominantly religious” purposes in posting the Ten Commandments in their court- houses, and thus violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. However, in Van Orden v. Perry (03–1500), an even more sharply divided court held that a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. The court’s opinions in these cases, described in detail below, highlight profound differences among the justices in their understandings of the Establishment Clause. These differences have resulted in close and fragmented rulings in a wide range of Establishment Clause cases, ranging from aid to parochial schools (Mitchell v. Helms, 2000; Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002), to prayer at public school events (Lee v. Weisman, 1992; Santa Fe v. Doe, 2000), to religious holiday displays on public prop- erty (Allegheny County v. ACLU, 1989), and now to government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation from the court, announced on July 1, promises to make Establishment Clause jurisprudence even more complex. Because of sharp divisions within the court and the prospect of even more resignations, it is impossible to predict with any certainty how the High Court might rule on future public displays of the Ten Commandments.

  • Hispanic Texans

    texas historical commission Hispanic texans Journey from e mpire to Democracy a GuiDe for h eritaGe travelers Hispanic, spanisH, spanisH american, mexican, mexican american, mexicano, Latino, Chicano, tejano— all have been valid terms for Texans who traced their roots to the Iberian Peninsula or Mexico. In the last 50 years, cultural identity has become even more complicated. The arrival of Cubans in the early 1960s, Puerto Ricans in the 1970s, and Central Americans in the 1980s has made for increasing diversity of the state’s Hispanic, or Latino, population. However, the Mexican branch of the Hispanic family, combining Native, European, and African elements, has left the deepest imprint on the Lone Star State. The state’s name—pronounced Tay-hahs in Spanish— derives from the old Spanish spelling of a Caddo word for friend. Since the state was named Tejas by the Spaniards, it’s not surprising that many of its most important geographic features and locations also have Spanish names. Major Texas waterways from the Sabine River to the Rio Grande were named, or renamed, by Spanish explorers and Franciscan missionaries. Although the story of Texas stretches back millennia into prehistory, its history begins with the arrival of Spanish in the last 50 years, conquistadors in the early 16th cultural identity century. Cabeza de Vaca and his has become even companions in the 1520s and more complicated. 1530s were followed by the expeditions of Coronado and De Soto in the early 1540s. In 1598, Juan de Oñate, on his way to conquer the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico, crossed the Rio Grande in the El Paso area.
  • Sol Lewitt's Circle with Towers Acquired by the University of Texas

    Sol Lewitt's Circle with Towers Acquired by the University of Texas

    Contact: Leah Griffin, Landmarks (512) 495-4315, [email protected] Date: 3 March 2011 Leslie Lyon, College of Fine Arts (512) 475-7033, [email protected] Sol LeWitt’s Circle with Towers Acquired by The University of Texas at Austin AUSTIN, Texas—The concrete block structure Circle with Towers by Sol LeWitt (1928-2007) has been purchased by Landmarks, the public art program of The University of Texas at Austin, from the Madison Square Park Conservancy in New York. Circle with Towers will grace the entrance to the new Dell Computer Science Hall and the Bill and Melinda Gates Computer Science Complex currently under construction on the east side of Speedway between 21st and 24th Streets. The unveiling of the work will coincide with the opening of the computer science complex in September 2012. This work will join Landmarks’ permanent collection of public art on the main campus. “LeWitt’s structure will serve not only as an object in its own right but also as a new Sol LeWitt, Circle with Towers (2005) place that will allow students to interact Photo by Mary Ellen Mark with the Computer Science environment in Courtesy of the Madison Square Park Conservancy a way that is informal and was nonexistent before,” says Andrew Houston, member of the Faculty Building Advisory Committee and architecture and urban studies undergraduate. “It will be a focal point of intellectual debate and exploration—both of its embodied ideas and its physical presence.” The structure is made of concrete blocks that form a twenty-five-foot-diameter ring, which is intersected by fourteen-foot-high towers at equal intervals.
  • A Ustin , Texas

    A Ustin , Texas

    PROPERTY OF TWINLIGHTS PUBLISHERS PROPERTY OF TWINLIGHTS PUBLISHERS $26.95 austin, texas austin, Austin, Texas Austin,PROPERTY OF TWINLIGHTS Texas PUBLISHERS A Photographic Portrait Since its founding in 1839, Austin Peter Tsai A Photographic Portrait has seen quite a bit of transformation Peter Tsai is an internationally published over the years. What was once a tiny photographer who proudly calls Austin, frontier town is today a sophisticated Texas his home. Since moving to Austin urban area that has managed to main- in 2002, he has embraced the city’s natu- PROPERTY OF TWINLIGHTS PUBLISHERS PROPERTY OF TWINLIGHTStain its distinctive,PUBLISHERS offbeat character, ral beauty, its relaxed and open-minded and indeed, proudly celebrates it. attitude, vibrant nightlife, and creative The city of Austin was named for communities. In his Austin photos, he Stephen F. Austin, who helped to settle strives to capture the spirit of the city the state of Texas. Known as the “Live he loves by showcasing its unique and A P Music Capital of the World,” Austin har- eclectic attractions. H bors a diverse, well-educated, creative, Although a camera is never too far O PROPERTY OF TWINLIGHTS PUBLISHERS and industrious populace. Combined T away, when he is not behind the lens, OGR with a world-class public university, you can find Peter enjoying Austin with APH a thriving high-tech industry, and a his friends, exploring the globe, kicking laid-back, welcoming attitude, it’s no a soccer ball, or expanding his culinary IC POR wonder Austin’s growth continues un- palate. abated. To see more of Peter’s photography, visit T From the bracing artesian springs to R www.petertsaiphotography.com and fol- PROPERTY OF TWINLIGHTSA PUBLISHERS PROPERTY OF TWINLIGHTS PUBLISHERS I the white limestone cliffs and sparkling low him on Twitter @supertsai.
  • Summer 2006 Issue of Certworthy

    Summer 2006 Issue of Certworthy

    Certworthy Summer 2006 TM The newsletter of the DRI Appellate Advocacy Committee In This Issue… A Primer on Motions for Summary Affirmance in the Federal Courts A Primer on Motions for of Appeals ............................. 1 Appellate Advocacy Leadership Committee ............................ 2 Summary Affirmance in the Regional Editor Listing .......... 4 From the Chair: Federal Courts of Appeals The Hit Programs Keep Coming ................................. 5 Ralph W. Johnson, III late system and the judges who staff From The Editor: Halloran & Sage LLP it. The statistics in the 2005 Report Authors, Authors ................. 6 Hartford, CT from the Director of the Administra- The Ten Commandments Cases and [email protected] tive Office confirm that there is no the Establishment Clause: Is “Location, Location, Location” end in sight to the “crisis of volume” the New Three-Part Test?.... 11 For a variety of reasons, the image of that the federal courts of appeals have Circuit Reports ..................... 17 appellate attorneys as practicing law been battling since the 1990s. The First Circuit ........................ 17 from “Ivory Towers” is a quickly van- caseload faced by these courts is, in a Sec ond Circuit ................... 18 ishing one. Given the high cost of word, “overwhelming.” For example, Third Circuit ...................... 19 litigation, appellate attorneys, like Fourth Circuit .................... 20 Table B to the Director’s report indi- Fifth Circuit........................ 21 other litigators, must be sensitive to cates that there was a 9.1 percent in- Sixth Circuit ....................... 23 the financial burden that litigation crease in number of appeals filed in Eighth Circuit..................... 24 imposes on their clients and must Fiscal Year 2005 (68,473) in the re- Ninth Circuit .....................
  • VAN ORDEN V. PERRY, in HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR of TEXAS and CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, ET AL

    VAN ORDEN V. PERRY, in HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR of TEXAS and CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, ET AL

    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2004 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus VAN ORDEN v. PERRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS AND CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 03–1500. Argued March 2, 2005—Decided June 27, 2005 Among the 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the Texas State Capitol is a 6-foot-high monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The legislative record illustrates that, after accept- ing the monument from the Fraternal Order of Eagles—a national social, civic, and patriotic organization—the State selected a site for it based on the recommendation of the state organization that main- tains the capitol grounds. Petitioner, an Austin resident who encoun- ters the monument during his frequent visits to those grounds, brought this 42 U. S. C. §1983 suit seeking a declaration that the monument’s placement violates the First Amendment’s Establish- ment Clause and an injunction requiring its removal. Holding that the monument did not contravene the Clause, the District Court 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 con- text, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the mes- sage that the State endorsed religion.
  • Statistics As of June 28, 2005

    Statistics As of June 28, 2005

    JNL04$IND2—07-07-05 12:55:23 JNLINDPGT MILES II STATISTICS AS OF JUNE 28, 2005 Paid In Forma Original Total Cases Pauperis Cases Number of cases on docket..................... 4 2041 6543 8588 Cases disposed of...................................... 0 1687 5814 7501 Remaining on docket ............. 4 354 729 1087 Cases docketed during term: Paid cases............................................................................................ 1741 In forma pauperis cases.................................................................. 5755 Original cases ..................................................................................... 0 Total ..................................................................................................... 7496 Cases remaining from last term ............................................................... 1092 Total cases on the docket........................................................................... 8588 Cases disposed of......................................................................................... 7501 Number remaining on docket.................................................................... 1087 Petitions for certiorari granted: In paid cases ....................................................................................... 69 In in forma pauperis cases............................................................. 11 Appeals granted: In paid cases ....................................................................................... 0 Total cases granted plenary review........................................................
  • Section 8: Update & Looking Ahead

    Section 8: Update & Looking Ahead

    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2004 Section 8: Update & Looking Ahead Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 8: Update & Looking Ahead" (2004). Supreme Court Preview. 182. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/182 Copyright c 2004 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview Looking Ahead Looking Ahead: The Ten Commandments; Van Orden v. Perry Synopsis and Question Presented 523 Looking Ahead: The Ten Commandments; Johnson v. Baker Synopsis and Question Presented 528 A Most UnusualLawyer; A Homeless Man with Psychological Scars is Challenging Texas Over a Ten Commandments Statute. The Supreme Court May Take His Case. Scott Gold 532 Two Tablets May Renew A High Court Headache; Disputes in Alabama, Other States Prompt Call For Supreme Court to Issue Definitive Ruling Manuel Roig-Franzia 537 FederalAppeals Court Rules Against Ky. Ten Commandments Display 540 Turmoil In Adams County: Religious Displays Taken From Schools Randy Ludlow 542 Debate Lingers As Monument is Removed From View; Commandments Display Put in Storage in Ala. Courthouse Alan Cooperman & Manuel Roig-Franzia 545 Alabama Justice's Ouster Upheld in Ten Commandments Case Ariel Hart 547 Looking Ahead: Felony Voting Rights; Muntaqim v. Coombe Synopsis and Question Presented 548 DisenfranchisedWithout Recourse? Gary Young 553 Felony DisenfranchisementLaws in the United States The Sentencing Project 555 Once a Felon, Never a Voter? Megan Twohey 558 Votes For Felons John J.
  • Why the Supreme Court Should Leave Marks Over Van Orden V. Perry

    Why the Supreme Court Should Leave Marks Over Van Orden V. Perry

    Nebraska Law Review Volume 85 Issue 3 Article 7 2007 A Problematic Plurality Precedent: Why the Supreme Court Should Leave Marks over Van Orden v. Perry W. Jesse Weins University of Nebraska College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation W. Jesse Weins, A Problematic Plurality Precedent: Why the Supreme Court Should Leave Marks over Van Orden v. Perry, 85 Neb. L. Rev. (2011) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol85/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Note* A Problematic Plurality Precedent: Why the Supreme Court Should Leave Marks over Van Orden v. Perry TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 831 II. The Marks Doctrine and Supreme Court Treatment of Plurality Precedents .................................. 833 A. The Marks Doctrine: Establishing a Plurality Precedent ......................................... 834 1. Origin and Application ......................... 834 2. Determining a Plurality Decision's Narrowest Ground-Two Methods ........................ 835 a. The Implicit-Consensus Model-Finding an Underlying Agreement ..................... 836 b. The Predictive Model-Finding a Dominant Second Choice ............................. 836 B. Supreme Court Treatment of Marks and Plurality Precedents ........................................ 838 1. The Court Applies the Marks Doctrine When There is No Lower Court Confusion ............ 839 2. The Court Bypasses the Marks Doctrine When There is Lower Court Confusion ............... 840 a. Discarding the Plurality Precedent ......... 840 b. Readopting the Plurality Precedent ......... 841 III. Van Orden v. Perry ..................................