Opinion ID: 768474
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonable Observer

Text: 128 As to the reasonable observer, Justice O'Connor clarified the definition in her concurring opinion, with two other justices joining, in Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) (State of Ohio did not violate Establishment Clause in allowing the Ku Klux Klan to display crosses in Capitol Square 9 during Christmas season) stating: 129 I therefore disagree that the endorsement test should focus on the actual perception of individual observers, who naturally have differing degrees of knowledge. Under such an approach, a religious display is necessarily precluded so long as some passersby would perceive a governmental endorsement thereof. In my view, however, the endorsement test creates a more collective standard to gauge the 'objective' meaning of the [government's] statement in the community. In this respect, the applicable observer is similar to the reasonable person in tort law, who is not to be identified with any ordinary individual, who might occasionally do unreasonable things, but is rather a personification of a community ideal of reasonable behavior, determined by the [collective] social judgment. Thus, we do not ask whether there is any person who could find an endorsement of religion, whether some people may be offended by the display, or whether some reasonable person might think [the State] endorses religion. Saying that the endorsement inquiry should be conducted from the perspective of a hypothetical observer who is presumed to possess a certain level of information that all citizens might not share neither chooses the perceptions of the majority over those of a reasonable non-adherent, nor invites disregard for the values the Establishment Clause was intended to protect. It simply recognizes the fundamental difficulty inherent in focusing on actual people: There is always someone who, with a particular quantum of knowledge, reasonably might perceive a particular action as an endorsement of religion. A State has not made religion relevant to standing in the political community simply because a particular viewer of a display might feel uncomfortable. 130 515 U.S. at 779-80 (internal citations omitted).