Joshua Gill, DCNF

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a New Mexico city’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that ordered officials to remove a Ten Commandments display from city hall property.

SCOTUS denied Bloomfield’s appeal without comment Monday, and sided with a district court’s decision in favor of a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed on behalf of two Wiccans that objected to a Ten Commandments display on the lawn of the Bloomfield City Hall, according to Constitution Daily. The ACLU celebrated the SCOTUS decision as a perceived victory for separation of church and state.

However, David Cortman, senior counsel for The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), said the decision only served to intensify confusion over the issue of such displays on government property, according to the Associated Press.

“Americans shouldn’t be forced to censor religion’s role in history simply to appease someone who is offended by it or who has a political agenda to remove all traces of religion from the public square,” Cortman said.

SCOTUS ruled in favor of a similar Ten Commandments display in Texas, replicated in Nebraska and Arkansas, but ruled against two such displays in Kentucky in 2005. Twenty-three states signed an amicus brief in defense of Bloomfield’s display in August. The ADF said in its appeal that it wanted SCOTUS to settle the question of whether someone can sue on the grounds of the First Amendment simply for being offended, and the question of how the Establishment Clause test is applied to monuments.

Attorneys from ADF argued on behalf of the city that SCOTUS precedent determined personal offense toward a display did not provide a legal basis to challenge it. The city also claimed that the display was not a government endorsement of any one religion, as evidenced by a disclaimer that officials placed on the lawn, stating that the lawn was a public forum and privately funded monuments do not reflect the position of the city government.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was not involved in the decision as he had not yet been nominated when the court considered the issue, and two justices dissented in the decision.

• Author
• Recent Posts

BPR Wire

Latest posts by BPR Wire (see all)

• The Florida candidate laser-focused on eradicating horrific animal crimes - March 22, 2024
• Sabo: ‘Rush was our GOAT, there was no equal and he made it look easy’ - February 18, 2024
• Dana Bash appears to want to crawl out of her own skin when Ramaswamy ‘goes there’ on J6 - December 7, 2023

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.