Opinion ID: 172243
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual Similarities

Text: The disposition in this case cannot be reconciled with Van Orden, which ought to control given the substantial similarities between the operative facts in the two cases. As in Van Orden, this Ten Commandments display is located outside, on the grounds of a public buildinghere a county courthousealong with other secular displays. These displays include a war memorial for World Wars I and II (the largest monument on the lawn); smaller monuments for Vietnam and Korea, the Choctaw Nation, the unmarked graves in Haskell County, and the Classes of 1954 and 1955; as well as a sidewalk composed partly of personal message bricks commemorating various individuals and groups. Green v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of County of Haskell, 450 F.Supp.2d 1273, 1274-75 (E.D.Okla.2006), rev'd, 568 F.3d 784 (10th Cir.2009). All of these monuments are within seventy-five feet of each other, and thus can all be considered to be a single group of monuments. Furthermore, the Ten Commandments display was not in the most prominent place on the courthouse lawn. [4] The physical setting of the monument, therefore, suggests little or nothing of the sacred. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 702, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring). The fact that the monument is surrounded by other secular displays is of considerable importance under existing precedent. See id.; County of Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 595-96, 598-600, 616-19, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (plurality opinion); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 692, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984); O'Connor, 416 F.3d at 1228; cf. ACLU v. City of Plattsmouth, 419 F.3d 772, 779 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc) (Bye, J., dissenting) (noting that the court upheld a display standing alone). And yet, the court dismisses this consideration out-of-hand, reasoning that the collection is less cohesive, integrated, and artistic than the collection in Van Orden. Green, 568 F.3d at 805-06. How an aesthetic critique of the monuments distinguishes this case in any meaningful way from Van Orden is puzzling. Federal courts do not sit as landscape architects or arbiters of style to decide whether small-town commissioners have sufficiently sophisticated taste. The court protests, perhaps too much, that the critical factor here is not mere aesthetics, but rather the failure to have a unifying, cohesive secular theme. Id. at 806 n. 16. That, too, is in the eye of the beholder; as I suggest below, the collection of monuments does have a theme celebration of Haskell County's history and moral ideals. The display of monuments does not have to be comprehensive; it is enough that the display celebrates a selection of events, people, and ideals that mark and measure the lives of Haskell County's citizens. Moreover, the court's opinion has created a catch-22: the commissioners could either exercise direct control over the creation of monuments (rendering the message more likely to be identified with the government), or they could take a hands-off, neutral approach (creating the possibility of a disunified theme). Either way, under the court's opinion, the commissioners lose. Accordingly, we should not rely on such an easily manipulated rationale as cohesiveness to distinguish this case from Van Orden. The only legally relevant consideration is whether there are sufficient other monuments such that, taken as a whole, the display conveys a secular moral and historical message. See Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 701, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring) (In certain contexts, a display of the tablets of the Ten Commandments can convey not simply a religious message but also a secular moral ... [a]nd ... historical message.); see also Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1140, 172 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009) (Scalia, J., concurring) (engaging in a Van Orden inquiry and noting the presence of fifteen permanent displays without inquiring as to their integration or aesthetic quality). This display most certainly does soafter all, the monument sits with other monuments celebrating Haskell County's history and honoring (among others) those who have made the moral sacrifice of giving their lives for the rights and liberties we hold dear. The setting clearly establishes that the monument exists in a context of history and moral ideals. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 701, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring). Moreover, the message conveyed by the collection of monuments is reemphasized by the display itself, as the monument contains not only the Ten Commandments, but also the Mayflower Compact. Green, 450 F.Supp.2d at 1276. Until the court's opinion suggested otherwise, Green, 568 F.3d at 807-08, who would have suspected that the Mayflower Compact primarily contributes to a religious message by being paired with the Ten Commandments? At the risk of stating the obvious, the Compact pertains to the founding of our country (which is of some historical significance), and nothing suggests that the Compact's religious aspects were meant to predominate. If anything, the Compact demonstrates that the historical aspect of the Ten Commandments predominated. In any event, it is clear that the monument is part of a display that communicates not simply a religious message, but a secular message as well. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 701, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring). The setting of the monument and the presence of a clear historical and moral message are strong indications that the monument conveys a predominantly secular message and is therefore constitutional. Id. at 702, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring). It is clear, of course, that the Ten Commandments display also conveys a religious message. See id. at 690, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (plurality opinion). This alone raises no concern. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Id. (plurality opinion). It is also worth noting that the County did not pay for the monument. Additionally, as in Van Orden, the government further distance[d]... itself from the religious aspect of the Commandments' message, id. at 701-02, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring), in that the monument bore the inscription Erected by Citizens of Haskell County, [5] Green, 450 F.Supp.2d at 1277. See Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 776, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 132 L.Ed.2d 650 (1995) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (In context, a disclaimer helps remove doubt about state approval of [a] religious message.). This inscription, combined with the context of the display, leaves little doubt that the government itself did not communicate a predominantly religious message, but rather was merely providing space for yet another donated monument related to Haskell County's history.