www.LC.org

Washington, DC – Today, a unanimous United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Pleasant Grove City, Utah, which refused to display Summum’s Seven Aphorisms in its public park. Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in the case of Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, in support of Pleasant Grove City. Liberty University School of Law and Liberty Counsel also hosted a moot court with Jay Sekulow at the law school’s Supreme Courtroom prior to the argument. Sekulow is the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice and argued the case.

Liberty Counsel’s brief argued that this case is not about the right to freedom of speech, but it is about the government's right to speak without inviting the multitudes into the same forum to counter the government's message. This case means that the government will not be forced to include a display devoted to atheism every time it displays a Nativity scene. This important decision only deals with government speech and does not affect private displays or individual speech on public property.

Pleasant Grove City has 11 displays and monuments donated by local people or organizations over a period of more than 80 years which depict the history of the city. In 1971, the city accepted a donated monument of the Ten Commandments from the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The city owns, maintains and controls the displays and monuments. Summum is a religion and philosophy that began in 1975, as a result of its founder’s alleged encounter with certain “beings” he describes as “Summum Individuals.”

The Supreme Court ruled that by accepting donated displays and transferring ownership to the city, the city did not open a forum for everyone wishing to display a monument in the public park. The Court noted that the city “is entitled to say what the city wishes.” The Court found that the park was not a public forum for private speech, noting that permanent displays typically represent government property. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito Jr, states: “Just as government-commissioned and government-financed monuments speak for the government, so do privately financed and donated monuments that the government accepts and displays to the public on government land … [T]hroughout our Nation's history, the general government practice with respect to donated monuments has been one of selective receptivity.”

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented on the case: “If the government were required to accept any conflicting message anytime it spoke through a donated display, then the Statue of Liberty would need to make room for the Statue of Tyranny or perhaps a statue of Stalin or Adolf Hitler. It would make no sense to force the government to include a display devoted to atheism every time it displays a Nativity scene. It would make no sense to require the government to display a message promoting smoking every time it expressed an antismoking message. If this decision had gone the other way, our parks would become dumping grounds for all sorts of private monuments with conflicting messages. The ruling by the Supreme Court comports with common sense.”