The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Nov. 12 that the placement on the Texas State Capitol lawn of a monument engraved with the Ten Commandments is not unconstitutional, and does not constitute any attempt to establish state-sponsored religion. In making the ruling, the court agreed with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott that the monument and other memorials on the Capitol grounds “convey the sense of the grounds as a museum, overseen by a curator,” according to an AG press release. “The Ten Commandments are undoubtedly a sacred religious text, but they are also a foundational document in the development of Western legal codes and culture,” Abbott said in the release — a version of the “secular importance” disclaimer used over the past 20-odd years to justify posting the Decalogue on or in state property or in public schools.
Austin attorney Thomas Van Orden brought suit against the state, arguing that in accepting the monument — a 1961 gift from the Fraternal Order of Eagles — and then by placing it on the Capitol grounds, the state was in effect endorsing Judaism and Christianity to the exclusion of other faiths. Van Orden, who is homeless, has said that he was offended by the monument, which he routinely passed on his way to and from the Texas State Law Library in the Capitol complex. U.S. District Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth initially agreed with the AG’s secular-purpose argument — and it’s not surprising that the conservative New Orleans-based 5th Circuit has now concurred. Still, Van Orden’s case isn’t necessarily finished; last December he told the Chronicle he would appeal any unfavorable ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The relationship between government and the Big Ten has been at the heart of much recent hullabaloo — notably in the case of Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was recently ousted by state judicial overseers for repeatedly defying orders from the federal bench to remove a Decalogue from his courthouse lobby. Conflicting rulings from the various federal appellate courts regarding placement of the Ten Commandments in and on government property make Van Orden’s case a potentially attractive one for the Supremes to consider during this year’s session. (For more on Van Orden and his case, see “Thou Shalt Not Sue?” by Dave Mann, Dec. 6, 2002.)
This article appears in November 21 • 2003.