Opinion ID: 782263
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Size and Placement of the Seal

Text: 51 Third, the Seal is relatively small, and because it is generally placed near the bottom or on the last page of legal documents, it is also discreet. In assessing the effect that a symbol has on a reasonable observer, courts often analyze the size and placement of the challenged practice. For example, in Allegheny County, the Supreme Court noted the crèche display's special placement in the Grand Staircase, the `main' and `most beautiful' part of the building that is the seat of county government. Allegheny County, 492 U.S. at 600, 109 S.Ct. 3086; see also id. at 626, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (The display of religious symbols in public areas of core government buildings runs a special risk of making religion relevant, in reality or public perception, to status in the political community.) In Stone, the Court observed that the text of the Ten Commandments appeared on the wall of each public elementary and secondary school classroom in the Commonwealth, where [i]f the posted copies of the Ten Commandments [were] to have any effect at all, it [would] be to induce the school-children to read, meditate upon, and perhaps venerate and obey the Commandments. Stone, 449 U.S. at 39 n. 1, 42, 101 S.Ct. 192. 52 Two circuit courts of appeals have dealt with Ten Commandments monuments that were located or that were to be located on the grounds of state capitols. Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471 (6th Cir.2002); Ind. Civil Liberties Union v. O'Bannon, 259 F.3d 766 (7th Cir.2001). In both cases, the monuments were prominently located at the heart of state government and displayed the text of the Ten Commandments in large lettering. Adland, 307 F.3d at 486; see also Ind. Civil Liberties Union, 259 F.3d at 772-73. Although the monument in Adland also contained text from other sources of secular law, the Ten Commandments occup[ied] the bulk of the surface area and accordingly plainly dominate[d] the monument. Adland, 307 F.3d at 486; see also Ind. Civil Liberties Union, 259 F.3d at 772-73 (affirming the grant of a preliminary injunction against constructing the monument because the monument was large and the lettering for the Commandments was larger than the lettering for the Bill of Rights). The Adland court found that a reasonable observer would infer religious endorsement, because the Ten Commandments monument physically dominate[d] the `historical and cultural display' in the Capitol garden area and its sheer dimensions ... dwarf[ed] all the other memorials in the area. 53 All of these cases found the use of the religious symbols to be unconstitutional, and all but the Stone opinion specifically analyzed the effect that the symbols would have on a reasonable observer. All of the cases involved displays that were large or in your face and occupied a place of prominence or special honor, often dominating the other objects surrounding them. 13 In contrast, the pictograph of the tablets and sword is at most only one inch in diameter and is not the focal point of any governmental display in an important public building. Consequently, the Seal's size and placement make it less likely that a reasonable observer would believe that the government intended to send a message of religious endorsement. 14 54 When assessing the effect that a governmental practice would have on a reasonable observer, we recognize that it would be improper to rely solely on any single factor. The fact that a symbol is small or inconspicuous, alone, is not dispositive. The caselaw shows that exclusively religious symbols, such as a cross, will almost always render a governmental seal unconstitutional, no matter how small the religious symbol is. See, e.g., Robinson v. City of Edmond, 68 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir.1995); Harris v. City of Zion, Lake County, Ill., 927 F.2d 1401 (7th Cir.1991); Friedman, 781 F.2d at 777. Size and placement are, however, factors to consider in the overall effect-prong analysis. 55