Bob Ritter
 Bob Ritter, JM Center
 Founder & President

Jefferson Madison Center for Religions Liberty

Educating Americans about religious liberty as expressed
by founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison

Home    About Us    Our Issues    Jefferson    Madison

Appendix 2 — List of Cases by City (or County)
[Working Draft, Oct. 24, 2011]

Austin, Texas - Van Orden v. Perry
Bannock County, Idaho - Albanese v. Bannock County
Boise, Idaho - Generation Life v. City of Boise
Callaghan, Utah -Summum v. Callaghan
Denver, Colorado - State of Colorado v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.
Elkhart, Indiana - Books v. Elkhart
Everett, Washington - Card v. City of Everett
Fargo, North Dakota - Twombly v. City of Fargo
Frankfurt, Kentucky - Adland v. Russ
Frederick, Maryland - Chambers v. City of Frederick
Grand Junction, Colorado - Christian v. City of Grand Junction
Haywood County, North Carolina - Suhre v. Haywood County
La Crosse, Wisconsin - Mercier v. City of La Crosse
McCreary County, Kentucky - McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky
Ogden, Utah - Summum v. City of Ogden
Plattsmouth, Nebraska- ACLU Nebraska Foundation v. City of Plattsmouth
Pleasant Grove City, Utah - Society of Separationists v. Pleasant Grove City
Pleasant Grove City, Utah - Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
Princeton (Gibson County), Indiana
Salt Lake City, Utah - Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp.

Description of and Hyperlinks to Cases

  1. Adland v. Russ, 107 F.Supp.2d 782 (E.D. Ky. Jul. 27, 2000), the District Court permantently enjoined the state’s Dept. of from relocating a Decalog from one part of the Capitol grounds to another location on the Capitol grounds near the floral clock so that it could be made a part of a historical and cultural display.
  2. Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2002) (2-1; dissent on ripeness grounds only), cert. denied (May 2003) - The court struck down the display on the basis of both the purpose and effect prongs of Lemon (seemingly on summary judgment, but unclear). Purpose: The State’s proffered purpose of reminding citizens of the Biblical foundations of our laws is not a secular purpose. The history of display further illustrates a religious purpose because other items were added only as an afterthought, and the Ten Commandments dwarfs all of the others.
  3. Albanese v. Bannock County, Idaho, No. CIV 93-0115-E (D ID, 1995) (unreported): The court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their challenge, but also went on to address the merits. On the merits, the court relied on Colorado v. Freedom From Religion Foundation and Harvey v. Cobb County to conclude that the display permissibly emphasizes the secular value of the Ten Commandments. The court also rejected the Plaintiffs’ state constitutional claim. Purpose: The Plaintiffs did not present any evidence about the County’s purpose in accepting the monument and the testimony at trial made clear that the County Commissioners’ present-day intent is to display the monument as a “memorial to the rule of law” and not as an endorsement of religion.
  4. ACLU Nebraska Foundation v. City of Plattsmouth, No. 02-2444 (8th Cir. Feb. 18, 2004) (2-1) (vac’d for reh’g en banc) affirmed that the tombstone must be removed.
  5. ACLU v. City of Plattsmouth, 419 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. en banc, 2005) - monument standing alone in a public park displaying a nonsectarian version of the Ten Commandments is a "passive--and permissible-use of the text of the Ten Commandments to acknowledge the role of religion in our Nation's heritage" that does not violate the Establishment clause. Applied McCreary and Van Orden, with dissent.
  6. Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp., 476 F.2d 29 (10th Cir. 1973), the 10th Circuit held that even though one of the declared purposes of the monolith was to “inspire respect for the law of God,” the monument was also motivated by a desire to commemorate the Ten Commandments’ secular aspects. The Fraternal Order of Eagles is not a religious organization, and the monument does not involve “compulsion.” The monolith is “primarily secular, and not religious in character.”
  7. Books v. Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292 (7th Cir. 2000) (2-1), the 7th Circuit found that the display violated the purpose and effect prongs of Lemon, on summary judgment.
  8. Books v. City of Elkhart, Ind., 239 F.3d 826 (7th Cir., Jan. 31, 2001), the 7th Circuit granted motion to stay court’s mandate to give time for U.S. Supreme Court to review petition for certiorari. cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1058 (2001) (Thomas, Scalia & Rehnquist dissenting from denial of certiorari); on remand (2002)
  9. Card v. City of Everett, 386 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (W.D. Wash., 2005, the District Court found the display at issue, though “borderline,” did not violate the Establishment Clause. The court also noted that "context" is important to determining the validity of any religious display.
  10. Chambers v. City of Frederick 2003 WL 22810295 (D. Md. 2003).
  11. Christian v. City of Grand Junction, 2001 WL 34047958 (D. Colo., 2001) (not reported in F. Supp.2d): The court found neither a religious purpose nor effect at the preliminary injunction stage.
  12. Generation Life v. City of Boise, Case No. CV04-040-S-EJL: After the Boise City Council voted to remove a Ten Commandments monument from a public park, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the removal. They alleged that the removal would violate the Establishment Clause by endorsing nontheistic religion and by reflecting hostility to the Judeo-Christian faith, and would violate free speech principles by preventing the plaintiffs from presenting their religious views. The Court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit because their injury was not particularized.
  13. Gibson County, Indiana, No. 3:03-CV-149-RLY-WGH, 2005 WL 2175527 (S.D. Ind., Sept. 7, 2005), the District Court found no Establishment Clause violation, while acknowledging that “[e]ven the Justices of the Supreme Court recognize that there is no perfect or consistent way to test a public display that contains religious features against the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.”
  14. Indiana Civil Liberties Union v O’Bannon, 259 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2001) (2-1), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1173 (2002) - the 7th Circuit struck down the monument as violative of the purpose and effect prongs of Lemon at preliminary injunction stage.
  15. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).<
  16. Mercier v. City of La Crosse, 395 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2004) (2-1) the 7th Circuit held that the sale was permissible under Freedom from Religion Foundation v. City of Marshfield, 203 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2000), which struck down, solely on the grounds that the sold property was not demarcated, the non-bid sale to private individuals of a portion of a public park that housed a religious statue. The fact that the City sold the property to the Eagles in order to ensure the monument’s retention does not make it a constitutional violation.
  17. Society of Separationists v. Pleasant Grove City, 416 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2005).
  18. Society of Separationists v. Pleasant Grove City, No. 2:03-CV-839J (D. Utah 2004)
  19. State of Colorado v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., 898 P.2d 1013 (Colo. 1995) (en banc, 4-3), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1111 (1996), Colorado Superme Court held 4-3 that a Ten Commandments secular symbols, representing “a cornucopia of different cultural events and experiences that make up the history of our nation and reflect upon a history that is Colorado.”
  20. Suhre v. Haywood County, 55 F.Supp.2d 384 (W.D. N.C. 1999).
  21. Summum v. Callaghan, 130 F.3d 906, 910 n.2 & 912 n.8 (10th Cir. 1997).
  22. Summum v. City of Ogden, 297 F.3d 995, 1000 n.3 (10th Cir. 2002).
  23. Summum v. Pleasant Grove City (10th Cir. Apr. 17, 2007).
  24. Summum v. Pleasant Grove City (10th Cir en banc. Aug. 24, 2007).
  25. Twombly v. City of Fargo, 388 F. Supp. 2d 983 (D.N.D. 2005), the District Court refused to apply the Lemon test, while stating.
  26. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).