The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, by a vote of 5 to 4, that the display was constitutional. An amicus curiae was presented on behalf of the respondents (the state of Texas) by then- Solicitor General Paul Clement. Texas' case was argued by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.
CASE FOR IBANEZ EX 1500 PRO
The appeal of the 5th Circuit's decision was argued by Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar and the Alston & Bird Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law, who represented Van Orden on a pro bono basis. ACLU of Kentucky, a similar case challenging a display of the Ten Commandments at two county courthouses in Kentucky. 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.
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. 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.
Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas 923 (2004).Ī 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.Ĭhief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P.
0 kommentar(er)
