In The
Supreme Court of the United States
THOMAS VAN ORDEN
v.
RICK PERRY,
in his Official Capacity as Governor of Texas and Chairman, State Preservation Board, et al.
Decided June 27, 2005
Justice O’Connor, Dissenting
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In a suit brought by Thomas Van Orden of Austin, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in November 2003 that the displays were constitutional, on the grounds that the monument conveyed both a religious and secular message. Van Orden appealed, and in October 2004 the high court agreed to hear the case at the same time as it heard McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, a similar case challenging a display of the Ten Commandments at two county courthouses in Kentucky.
The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, by a vote of 5 to 4, that the display was constitutional. The Court chose not to employ the popular Lemon test in its analysis, reasoning that the display at issue was a "passive monument." Instead, the Court looked to "the nature of the monument and ... our Nation's history." The similar case of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky was handed down the same day with the opposite result (also with a 5 to 4 decision).
| Topic: First Amendment* | Court vote: 5–4 | |
| Note: No other Justices joined this opinion. | ||
| Holding: “A Ten Commandments monument erected on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause, because the monument, when considered in context, conveyed a historic and social meaning rather than an intrusive religious endorsement.” | ||
| Citation: 545 U.S. 677 | Docket: 03–1500 | Audio: Listen to this case's oral arguments at Oyez |
* As categorized by the Washington University Law Supreme Court Database
DISCLAIMER: Only United States Reports are legally valid sources for Supreme Court opinions. The text below is provided for ease of access only. If you need to cite the exact text of this opinion or if you would like to view the opinions of the other Justices in this case, please view the original United States Report at the Library of Congress or Justia. The Sandra Day O'Connor Institute does not in any way represent, warrant, or guarantee that the text below is accurate."
Opinion
Justice O’Connor, dissenting.
For essentially the reasons given by Justice Souter, post this page (dissenting opinion), as well as the reasons given in my concurrence in McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., post, p. 881, I respectfully dissent.
Header photo: United States Supreme Court. Credit: Patrick McKay / Flickr - CC.