Public displays of religious symbols, including Ten Commandments monuments, are subject to review under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." When a religious symbol is displayed on government property, it might be construed as a governmental act establishing a religion reflected by that symbol. The primary test courts use to evaluate claims under the Establishment Clause is known as the Lemon test. Under this test, public displays (1) must have a secular purpose, (2) must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) must not lead to excessive entanglement with religion. Each of these requirements is necessary for a public display of a religious symbol to be upheld as constitutional. Under this test, if a display fails one of the elements but meets the other two, it will nonetheless be struck down as unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court traditionally has evaluated the constitutionality of public display of the religious symbols by applying the Lemon test, but the applicability has been questioned in some of the cases. The Court has been split in the most recent cases involving public displays of the Ten Commandments, using different standards for the review of the displays under the Establishment Clause. This report analyzes the Court's holdings in the Ten Commandments cases and the distinctions the Court made in reaching divergent decisions. It also briefly addresses other relevant cases in which the Court evaluated constitutional issues related to religious displays on public property, including holiday displays. Finally, the report discusses related Court decisions regarding public displays, including Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum and Salazar v. Buono . In 1980, the Supreme Court first addressed the constitutionality of public displays of the Ten Commandments. In 2005, the Supreme Court issued two decisions involving public displays of the Ten Commandments. Rather than issuing a brightline rule regarding the constitutionality of the displays, the Court considered each of the displays in 2005 separately and reached different conclusions under their Establishment Clause analysis in each case. In Stone v. Graham , the Court struck down a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a privately funded copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public school classroom in the state. The Court determined that the statute had no secular purpose, failing the Lemon test's first prong, and therefore was unconstitutional. Kentucky argued that the statute served a secular legislative purpose because the Commandments displays included the following notation: "The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States." The Court, however, found that the "pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls was plainly religious" and the display served no educational function. The Court held that an "'avowed' secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment." In Stone , the source of the funding did not affect the constitutionality of the statute. Although the displays were funded by voluntary private contributions, the Court held that "the mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the 'official support of the State ... Government' that the Establishment Clause prohibits." In 1999, two counties in Kentucky posted large displays of the Ten Commandments, including a citation to the Book of Exodus, in their courthouses. The displays were placed in public areas, "readily visible" to those who used the courthouse. Soon after the displays were posted, the ACLU of Kentucky sued the counties in federal district court for an injunction against maintaining the displays, alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause. While the court considered the requested injunction, the counties expanded the display to show that the Commandments were Kentucky's "precedent legal code," and included eight other documents, each having its own religious reference. The counties stated several grounds for their position, including a declaration that the "Founding Fathers had an explicit understanding of the duty of elected officials to publicly acknowledge God as the source of America's strength and direction." Although the district court ordered that the Commandments be removed immediately and that no county official "erect or cause to be erected similar displays," the counties erected a third display. This final display in each courthouse included nine documents of similar size to each other, and was titled "The Foundations of American Law and Government Display." When the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court emphasized the importance of neutrality in considering issues under the Establishment Clause, noting that "the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." The Court explained that the Establishment Clause's core value of neutrality is violated by government actions that have "the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion." The facts of McCreary raised questions of the relevance of the purpose prong of the Lemon test. The Court recognized that the purpose of a government action, though rarely dispositive, serves an important function. According to the Court, favoring one religion, or favoring religion generally, contradicts the understanding "that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens." The Court also recognized that purpose is a valid consideration when determining the constitutionality of a statute, citing numerous instances apart from Establishment Clause cases in which the Court looked to the purpose of an action when evaluating its constitutionality. The Court further explained that while a governmental entity's stated purpose is generally given deference, the Lemon test requires that "the secular purpose be genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective." The specific actions that the counties had taken in this case led the Court to conclude that the counties acted with an unconstitutional purpose. According to the Court, the first display "lacked even Stone 's implausible disclaimer that the Commandments were set out to show their effect on the civil law." Furthermore, the Court noted, the county executive's pastor "testified to the certainty of the existence of God" at the ceremony for posting the Commandments, which could reasonably lead observers to think that the counties were emphasizing the religious value of the display. Regarding the second display, the Court looked to the resolutions adopted to modify the displays, which expressed support for other public displays of the Commandments and cited a specific Christian reference used by the state legislature. The Court determined that the counties sought to highlight primarily religious texts and that their actions constituted "an indisputable, and undisputed, showing of an impermissible purpose." Although the counties attempted to demonstrate a valid secular purpose by creating a third display allegedly intended to educate the public on significant documents in American legal history, the Court found that there was no clear theme that overcame the apparent religious objectives the counties held in developing the displays. As a result, according to the Court, a reasonable observer "would probably suspect that the counties were simply reaching for a way to keep a religious document on the walls of courthouses constitutionally required to embody religious neutrality." In 1961, a monolith of the Ten Commandments was erected by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. The display was included among 17 monuments and 21 historical markers displayed in the 22 acres surrounding the Texas State Capitol, "commemorating the 'people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity." The Eagles paid the cost of erecting the monument, the location of which was determined by the state based on the recommendation of the state organization responsible for maintaining the Capitol grounds. In 2001, Thomas Van Orden, a frequent visitor to the Capitol grounds since 1995, sued state officials, claiming that the display violated the Establishment Clause. In deciding Van Orden , the Court did not use the test set forth in Lemon , but rather analyzed the placement of the monument based on the nature of the monument itself and the history of the nation. The Court cited numerous examples in which all three branches of government officially acknowledged the role of religion in American life, and specifically noted that the Court had recognized the role of God in American heritage in previous decisions. For instance, in Marsh v. Chambers , the Court held that the Establishment Clause permits a state legislature to open its daily session with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the state. The Court also noted cases in which the Court upheld laws originating from one of the Ten Commandments, for example, McGowan v. Maryland , which upheld a law prohibiting the sale of merchandise on Sunday. With respect to the specific display of the Ten Commandments, the Court found that "acknowledgments of the role played by the Ten Commandments in our Nation's heritage are common throughout America," and cited numerous government buildings where the Commandments can be found. Despite the focus on the historical significance of the Commandments, the Court acknowledged that they were at their inception and remain inherently religious. However, the Court noted that "[s]imply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause." Although the Court's holding might appear to conflict with Stone , the Court distinguished Van Orden from Stone based on the difference between religious displays in a classroom context and the "more passive" display of the Commandments at issue on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. The Court stated that while it had been "particularly vigilant" in Establishment Clause cases set in schools, there was never any indication that Stone 's holding would extend to a legislative chamber or to capitol grounds. Because the Texas monument lacked the particular concerns raised by displays in school settings and because Van Orden had walked past the monument for a number of years before bringing the lawsuit, the Court determined that the Van Orden display was different from the texts that confronted elementary school students every day in Stone . The Court held that the monument in question had a "dual significance, partaking of both religion and government," and therefore its inclusion among the monuments on the capitol grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause.