Allegheny County petitioner,
vs.
ACLU, (Respondents)
492 U.S. 573, July 3, 1989
FACTS:
The case involved two separate holiday displays in downtown Pittsburgh:
A nativity scene (crèche)[pronounced as kresh] was placed on the grand staircase of
the Allegheny County Courthouse. The text included in a banner in the said display was
“Gloria in Excelsis Deo!"
An 18-foot Hanukkah menorah was placed outside the City-County Building, next to a
45-foot decorated Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty. The text therein says
“During this holiday season, the city of Pittsburgh salutes liberty. Let these festive lights
remind us that we are the keepers of the flame of liberty and our legacy of freedom."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged both displays, arguing that they
violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the
government from endorsing or promoting religion.
ISSUE:
Did the display of the crèche and the menorah constitute an unconstitutional
endorsement of religion by the government?
RULING:
The display of the crèche in the courthouse was unconstitutional.However,
the menorah was not.
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government
from establishing a state religion or endorsing or promoting any particular
religion.
Here, the crèche display on the Allegheny County Courthouse staircase
violated the Establishment Clause. The crèche, standing alone, conveyed a
predominantly Christian message and created the impression that the
government was endorsing Christianity. However, the menorah display outside
the City-County Building, next to a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, did
not violate the Establishment Clause. The menorah, displayed as part of a larger
secular display recognizing the winter holiday season, would not be perceived by
a reasonable observer as endorsing Judaism.
Thus, there was a divided decision on the matter. The Court's decision
highlighted the importance of considering the context and setting of a religious
display when determining whether it constitutes an endorsement of religion
Notes : ACLU's Arguments:
Endorsement of Religion: The ACLU argued that both the crèche and the menorah, when displayed
on public property, constituted an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the government. They
asserted that the displays conveyed a message of government support for Christianity and Judaism,
respectively, and that this created the impression that the government favored those religions over
others.
Violation of the Establishment Clause: The ACLU emphasized that the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a state religion or from endorsing or
promoting any particular religion. They contended that the displays violated this principle by conveying
a message of government support for specific religions.
Coercive Effect: The ACLU argued that the displays created a coercive effect, suggesting that citizens
who did not adhere to Christianity or Judaism were somehow less valued or included in the community.
They argued that this coercive effect violated the principle of religious neutrality that the Establishment
Clause seeks to uphold.
Allegheny County and City of Pittsburgh's Arguments:
Secular Purpose: The County and City argued that the displays had a purely secular purpose, namely
to celebrate the holiday season and recognize the cultural diversity of the community. They contended
that the displays were intended to promote goodwill and community spirit, not to endorse any
particular religion.
Historical Tradition: They argued that the displays were part of a long-standing tradition of
recognizing Christmas and Hanukkah as cultural holidays, and that their removal would constitute an
infringement on the freedom of expression of those who celebrate these holidays.
Contextual Considerations: They emphasized that the displays were not isolated religious symbols
but were part of larger displays that included secular elements, such as a Christmas tree and a sign
saluting liberty. They argued that the context of the displays mitigated any potential perception of
government endorsement of religion.
No Coercion: They argued that the displays did not create any coercive effect on citizens, as they were
free to choose whether or not to participate in the holiday celebrations. They asserted that the displays
were simply a way of acknowledging the diverse religious traditions present in the community.
