3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.

SupremeCourtCenter

Justia U.S.Law U.S.CaseLaw U.S.SupremeCourt Volume492

CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU Case

ReceivefreedailysummariesofnewU.S.SupremeCourtopinions.

Enteryouremail.

SUBSCRIBE

CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU
492U.S.573(1989)
AnnotatethisCase

Opinion Annotation

Syllabus | Case

U.S.SupremeCourt

CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU,492U.S.573(1989)

CountyofAlleghenyv.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion,

GreaterPittsburghChapter

No.872050

ArguedFebruary22,1989

DecidedJuly3,1989*

492U.S.573

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 1/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

CERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFOR

THETHIRDCIRCUIT

Syllabus

Thislitigationconcernstheconstitutionalityoftworecurringholidaydisplayslocatedon
publicpropertyindowntownPittsburgh.Thefirst,acrechedepictingtheChristiannativity
scene,wasplacedontheGrandStaircaseoftheAlleghenyCountyCourthouse,whichis
the"main,""mostbeautiful,"and"mostpublic"partofthecourthouse.Thecrechewas
donatedbytheHolyNameSociety,aRomanCatholicgroup,andboreasigntothateffect.
Itsmangerhadatitscrestanangelbearingabannerproclaiming"GloriainExcelsisDeo,"
meaning"GlorytoGodintheHighest."Thesecondoftheholidaydisplaysinquestionwas
an18footChanukahmenorahorcandelabrum,whichwasplacedjustoutsidetheCity
CountyBuildingnexttothecity's45footdecoratedChristmastree.Atthefootofthetree
wasasignbearingthemayor'snameandcontainingtextdeclaringthecity's"saluteto
liberty."ThemenorahisownedbyChabad,aJewishgroup,butisstored,erected,and
removedeachyearbythecity.Respondents,theGreaterPittsburghChapterofthe
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionandsevenlocalresidents,filedsuitseekingpermanentlyto
enjointhecountyfromdisplayingthecrecheandthecityfromdisplayingthemenorahon
thegroundthatthedisplaysviolatedtheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment,
madeapplicabletostategovernmentsbytheFourteenthAmendment.TheDistrictCourt
deniedrelief,relyingonLynchv.Donnelly, 465U.S.668,whichheldthatacity'sinclusion
ofacrecheinitsannualChristmasdisplayinaprivateparkdidnotviolatetheEstablishment
Clause.TheCourtofAppealsreversed,distinguishingLynchv.Donnellyandholdingthat
thecrecheandthemenorahinthepresentcasemustbeunderstoodasanimpermissible
governmentalendorsementofChristianityandJudaismunderLemonv.Kurtzman, 403U.
S.602.

Page492U.S.574

Held:Thejudgmentisaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart,andthecasesareremanded.

842F.2d655,affirmedinpart,reversedinpart,andremanded.

JUSTICEBLACKMUNdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourtwithrespecttoPartsIIIA,IV,and
V,concludingthat:

1.UnderLemonv.Kurtzman,403U.S.at403U.S.612,a"practicewhichtouchesupon
religion,ifitistobepermissibleundertheEstablishmentClause,"mustnot,interalia,

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 2/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

"advance[or]inhibitreligioninitsprincipalorprimaryeffect."Although,inrefiningthe
definitionofgovernmentalactionthatunconstitutionally"advances"religion,theCourt's
subsequentdecisionshavevariouslyspokenintermsof"endorsement,""favoritism,"
"preference,"or"promotion,"theessentialprincipleremainsthesame:theClause,atthe
veryleast,prohibitsgovernmentfromappearingtotakeapositiononquestionsofreligious
belieforfrom"makingadherencetoareligionrelevantinanywaytoaperson'sstandingin
thepoliticalcommunity."Lynchv.Donnelly,465U.S.at465U.S.687(O'CONNOR,J.,
concurring).Pp.492U.S.589594.

2.Whenviewedinitsoverallcontext,thecrechedisplayviolatestheEstablishmentClause.
Thecrecheangel'swordsendorseapatentlyChristianmessage:GlorytoGodforthebirth
ofJesusChrist.Moreover,incontrasttoLynch,nothinginthecreche'ssettingdetractsfrom
thatmessage.AlthoughthegovernmentmayacknowledgeChristmasasacultural
phenomenon,itmaynotobserveitasaChristianholydaybysuggestingthatpeoplepraise
GodforthebirthofJesus.Pp.492U.S.598602.

3.JUSTICEKENNEDY'sreasonsforpermittingthecrecheontheGrandStaircaseandhis
condemnationoftheCourt'sreasonsfordecidingotherwiseareunpersuasive.Pp.492U.S.
602613.

(a)Historycannotlegitimatepracticeslikethecrechedisplaythatdemonstratethe
government'sallegiancetoaparticularsectorcreed.Pp.492U.S.602605.

(b)Thequestionwhetheraparticularpracticewouldconstitutegovernmentalproselytization
ismuchthesameastheendorsementinquiry,excepttotheextenttheproselytizationtest
requiresan"obvious"allegiancebetweenthegovernmentandthefavoredsect.ThisCourt's
decisions,however,imposenosuchburdenondemonstratingthatthegovernmenthas
favoredaparticularsectorcreed,but,tothecontrary,haverequiredstrictscrutinyof
practicessuggestingadenominationalpreference.E.g.,Larsonv.Valente, 456U.S.228,
456U.S.246.Pp.492U.S.605609.

(c)TheConstitutionmandatesthatthegovernmentremainsecular,ratherthanaffiliating
itselfwithreligiousbeliefsorinstitutions,preciselyinordertoavoiddiscriminatingagainst
citizensonthebasisoftheirreligiousfaiths.Thus,theclaimthatprohibitinggovernment
fromcelebratingChristmasasareligiousholidaydiscriminatesagainstChristians

Page492U.S.575

infavorofnonadherentsmustfail,sinceitcontradictsthefundamentalpremiseofthe
EstablishmentClauseitself.Incontrast,confiningthegovernment'sownChristmas

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 3/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

celebrationtotheholiday'ssecularaspectsdoesnotfavorthereligiousbeliefsofnon
ChristiansoverthoseofChristians,butsimplypermitsthegovernmenttoacknowledgethe
holidaywithoutexpressinganimpermissibleallegiancetoChristianbeliefs.Pp.492U.S.
610613.

JUSTICEBLACKMUN,joinedbyJUSTICESTEVENS,concludedinPartIIIBthatthe
concurringanddissentingopinionsinLynchv.Donnellysetforththeproperanalytical
frameworkfordeterminingwhetherthegovernment'sdisplayofobjectshavingreligious
significanceimproperlyadvancesreligion.465U.S.at465U.S.687694(O'CONNOR,J.,
concurring)id.at465U.S.694726(BRENNAN,J.,dissenting).Pp.492U.S.594597.

JUSTICEBLACKMUNconcludedinPartVIthatthemenorahdisplaydoesnothavethe
prohibitedeffectofendorsingreligion,givenits"particularphysicalsetting."Itscombined
displaywithaChristmastreeandasignsalutinglibertydoesnotimpermissiblyendorse
boththeChristianandJewishfaiths,butsimplyrecognizesthatbothChristmasand
Chanukaharepartofthesamewinterholidayseason,whichhasattainedasecularstatus
inoursociety.ThewidelyacceptedviewoftheChristmastreeasthepreeminentsecular
symboloftheChristmasseasonemphasizesthispoint.Thetree,moreover,byvirtueofits
sizeandcentralpositioninthedisplay,isclearlythepredominantelement,andthe
placementofthemenorahbesideitisreadilyunderstoodassimplyarecognitionthat
Christmasisnottheonlytraditionalwayofcelebratingtheseason.Theabsenceofamore
secularalternativetothemenorahnegatestheinferenceofendorsement.Similarly,the
presenceofthemayor'ssignconfirmsthat,intheparticularcontext,thegovernment's
associationwithareligioussymboldoesnotrepresentsponsorshipofreligiousbeliefs,but
simplyarecognitionofculturaldiversity.Givenalltheseconsiderations,itisnotsufficiently
likelythatareasonableobserverwouldviewthecombineddisplayasanendorsementor
disapprovalofhisindividualreligiouschoices.Pp.492U.S.613621.

JUSTICEO'CONNORalsoconcludedthatthecity'sdisplayofamenorah,togetherwitha
Christmastreeandasignsalutingliberty,doesnotviolatetheEstablishmentClause.The
Christmastree,whateveritsorigins,iswidelyviewedtodayasasecularsymbolofthe
Christmasholiday.AlthoughtheremaybecertainsecularaspectstoChanukah,itis
primarilyareligiousholiday,andthemenorahitscentralreligioussymbolandritualobject.
Byincludingthemenorahwiththetree,however,andwiththesignsalutingliberty,thecity
conveyedamessageofpluralismandfreedomofbeliefduringtheholidayseason,which,in
thisparticularphysicalsetting,couldnotbeinterpretedbyareasonable

Page492U.S.576

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 4/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

observerasanendorsementofJudaismorChristianityordisapprovalofalternativebeliefs.
Pp.492U.S.632637.

JUSTICEKENNEDY,joinedbyTHECHIEFJUSTICE,JUSTICEWHITE,andJUSTICE
SCALIA,concludedthatboththemenorahdisplayandthecrechedisplayarepermissible
undertheEstablishmentClause.Pp.492U.S.655667.

(a)ThetestsetforthinLemonv.Kurtzman, 403U.S.602,403U.S.612whichprohibits
the"principalorprimaryeffect"ofachallengedgovernmentalpracticefromeitheradvancing
orinhibitingreligionwhenappliedwiththepropersensitivitytoourtraditionsandcaselaw,
supportstheconclusionthatboththecrecheandthemenoraharepermissibledisplaysin
thecontextoftheholidayseason.TherequirementofneutralityinherentintheLemon
formulationdoesnotrequirearelentlessextirpationofallcontactbetweengovernmentand
religion.Governmentpoliciesofaccommodation,acknowledgment,andsupportforreligion
areanacceptedpartofourpoliticalandculturalheritage,andtheEstablishmentClause
permitsgovernmentsomelatitudeinrecognizingthecentralroleofreligioninsociety.Any
approachlesssensitivetoourheritagewouldborderonlatenthostilitytoreligion,asitwould
requiregovernmentinallitsmultifacetedrolestoacknowledgeonlythesecular,tothe
exclusion,andsotothedetriment,ofthereligious.Thus,thisCourt'sdecisionsdisclosetwo
principleslimitingthegovernment'sabilitytorecognizeandaccommodatereligion:itmay
notcoerceanyonetosupportorparticipateinanyreligionoritsexerciseanditmaynot,in
theguiseofavoidinghostilityorcallousindifference,givedirectbenefitstoareligioninsuch
adegreethatit,infact,establishesastatereligionortendstodoso.Inotherwords,the
governmentmaynotplaceitsweightbehindanobviousefforttoproselytizeonbehalfofa
particularreligion.Ontheotherhand,wherethegovernment'sactofrecognitionor
accommodationispassiveandsymbolic,anyintangiblebenefittoreligionisunlikelyto
presentarealisticriskofestablishment.Todeterminewhetherthereexistsan
establishment,oratendencytowardone,referencemustbemadetotheothertypesof
churchstatecontactsthathaveexistedunchallengedthroughoutourhistoryorthathave
beenfoundpermissibleinourcaselaw.Forexample,Lynchv.Donnelly, 465U.S.668,
upheldacity'sholidaydisplayofacreche,andMarshv.Chambers, 463U.S.783,held
thataState'spracticeofemployingalegislativechaplainwaspermissible.Pp.492U.S.
655663.

(b)Inpermittingthedisplaysofthemenorahandthecreche,thecityandcountysought
merelyto"celebratetheseason,"andtoacknowledgethehistoricalbackgroundandthe
religiousaswellassecularnatureoftheChanukahandChristmasholidays.Thisinterest
fallswellwithinthetraditionofgovernmentalaccommodationandacknowledgmentof
religion
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 5/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Page492U.S.577

thathasmarkedourhistoryfromthebeginning.Ifgovernmentistoparticipateinitscitizens'
celebrationofaholidaythatcontainsbothasecularandareligiouscomponent,enforced
recognitionofonlythesecularaspectwouldsignifythecallousindifferencetowardreligious
faiththatourcasesandtraditionsdonotrequireforbycommemoratingtheholidayonlyas
itiscelebratedbynonadherents,thegovernmentwouldberefusingtoacknowledgethe
plainfact,andthehistoricalreality,thatmanyofitscitizenscelebratethereligiousaspects
oftheholidayaswell.Thereisnosuggestionherethatthegovernment'spowertocoerce
hasbeenusedtofurtherChristianityorJudaism,orthatthecityorthecountycontributed
moneytofurtheranyonefaithorintendedtousethecrecheorthemenorahtoproselytize.
Thus,thecrecheandmenoraharepurelypassivesymbolsofreligiousholidays,andtheir
useispermissibleunderLynch,supra.IfMarsh,supra,allowsCongressandthestate
legislaturestobegineachdaywithastatesponsoredprayerofferedbyagovernment
employedchaplain,amenorahorcreche,displayedinthelimitedcontextoftheholiday
season,cannotbeinvalid.Thefactsthat,unlikethecrecheinLynch,themenorahand
crecheatissuewerebothlocatedongovernmentpropertyandwerenotsurroundedby
secularholidayparaphernaliaareirrelevant,sincethedisplayspresentnorealisticdangerof
movingthegovernmentdowntheforbiddenroadtowardanestablishmentofreligion.Pp.
492U.S.663667.

BLACKMUN,J.,announcedthejudgmentoftheCourtanddeliveredtheopinionofthe
CourtwithrespecttoPartsIIIA,IV,andV,inwhichBRENNAN,MARSHALL,STEVENS,
andO'CONNOR,JJ.,joined,anopinionwithrespecttoPartsIandII,inwhichSTEVENS
andO'CONNOR,JJ.,joined,anopinionwithrespecttoPartIIIB,inwhichSTEVENS,J.,
joined,anopinionwithrespecttoPartVII,inwhichO'CONNOR,J.,joined,andanopinion
withrespecttoPartVI.O'CONNOR,J.,filedanopinionconcurringinpartandconcurringin
thejudgment,inPartIIofwhichBRENNANandSTEVENS,JJ.,joined,post,p.492U.S.
623.BRENNAN,J.,filedanopinionconcurringinpartanddissentinginpart,inwhich
MARSHALLandSTEVENS,JJ.,joined,post,p.492U.S.637.STEVENS,J.,filedan
opinionconcurringinpartanddissentinginpart,inwhichBRENNANandMARSHALL,JJ.,
joined,post,p.492U.S.646.KENNEDY,J.,filedanopinionconcurringinthejudgmentin
partanddissentinginpart,inwhichREHNQUIST,C.J.,andWHITEandSCALIA,JJ.,
joined,post,p.492U.S.655.

Page492U.S.578

JUSTICEBLACKMUNannouncedthejudgmentoftheCourtanddeliveredtheopinionof
theCourtwithrespecttoPartsIIIA,IV,andV,anopinionwithrespecttoPartsIandII,in

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 6/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

whichJUSTICESTEVENSandJUSTICEO'CONNORjoin,anopinionwithrespecttoPart
IIIB,inwhichJUSTICESTEVENSjoins,anopinionwithrespecttoPartVII,inwhich
JUSTICEO'CONNORjoins,andanopinionwithrespecttoPartVI.

Thislitigationconcernstheconstitutionalityoftworecurringholidaydisplayslocatedon
publicpropertyindowntownPittsburgh.ThefirstisacrecheplacedontheGrandStaircase
oftheAlleghenyCountyCourthouse.ThesecondisaChanukahmenorahplacedjust
outsidetheCityCountyBuilding,nexttoaChristmastreeandasignsalutingliberty.The
CourtofAppealsfortheThirdCircuitruledthateachdisplayviolatestheEstablishment
ClauseoftheFirstAmendmentbecauseeachhastheimpermissibleeffectofendorsing
religion.

Page492U.S.579

842F.2d655(1988).Weagreethatthecrechedisplayhasthatunconstitutionaleffect,but
reversetheCourtofAppeals'judgmentregardingthemenorahdisplay.

ThecountycourthouseisownedbyAlleghenyCountyandisitsseatofgovernment.It
housestheofficesofthecountycommissioners,controller,treasurer,sheriff,andclerkof
court.Civilandcriminaltrialsareheldthere.App.69.The"main,""mostbeautiful,"and
"mostpublic"partofthecourthouseisitsGrandStaircase,setintoonearchandsurrounded
byothers,witharchedwindowsservingasabackdrop.Id.at157158seeJointExhibit
Volume(JEV)31.

Since1981,thecountyhaspermittedtheHolyNameSociety,aRomanCatholicgroup,to
displayacrecheinthecountycourthouseduringtheChristmasholidayseason.App.164.
Christmas,wenoteperhapsneedlessly,istheholidaywhenChristianscelebratethebirthof
JesusofNazareth,whomtheybelievetobetheMessiah.[Footnote1]Westernchurches
havecelebratedChristmasDayonDecember25sincethefourthcentury.[Footnote2]As
observedinthisNation,Christmashasasecular,aswellasareligious,dimension.
[Footnote3]

Page492U.S.580

Thecrecheinthecountycourthouse,likeothercreches,isavisualrepresentationofthe
sceneinthemangerinBethlehemshortlyafterthebirthofJesus,asdescribedinthe

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 7/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

GospelsofLukeandMatthew.[Footnote4]ThecrecheincludesfiguresoftheinfantJesus,
Mary,Joseph,farmanimals,shepherds,andwisemen,allplacedinorbeforeawooden
representationofamanger,whichhasatitscrestanangelbearingabannerthatproclaims
"GloriainExcelsisDeo!"[Footnote5]

Duringthe19861987holidayseason,thecrechewasondisplayontheGrandStaircase
fromNovember26toJanuary9.App.15,59.Ithadawoodenfenceonthreesides,and
boreaplaquestating:"ThisDisplayDonatedbytheHolyNameSociety."Sometimeduring
theweekofDecember2,thecountyplacedredandwhitepoinsettiaplantsaroundthe
fence.Id.at96.Thecountyalsoplacedasmallevergreentree,decoratedwitharedbow,
behindeachofthetwoendpostsofthefence.Id.at204JEV7.[Footnote6]Thesetrees
stoodalongsidethemangerbackdrop,andwereslightlyshorterthanitwas.Theangelthus
wasattheapexofthecrechedisplay.Altogether,thecreche,thefence,thepoinsettias,and
thetreesoccupiedasubstantialamountofspaceontheGrandStaircase.Nofiguresof
SantaClausorotherdecorations

Page492U.S.581

appearedontheGrandStaircase.App.188.[Footnote7]Cf.Lynchv.Donnelly, 465U.S.
668,465U.S.671(1984).AppendixA[omitted]attheendofthisopinionisaphotographof
thedisplay.

ThecountyusesthecrecheasthesettingforitsannualChristmascarolprogram.SeeJEV
36.Duringthe1986season,thecountyinvitedhighschoolchoirsandothermusicalgroups
toperformduringweekdaylunchhoursfromDecember3throughDecember23.Thecounty
dedicatedthisprogramtoworldpeaceandtothefamiliesofprisonersofwarandofpersons
missinginactioninSoutheastAsia.App.160JEV30.

NeartheGrandStaircaseisanareaofthecountycourthouseknownasthe"galleryforum"
usedforartandotherculturalexhibits.App.163.Thecreche,withitsfenceandfloralframe,
however,wasdistinct,andnotconnectedwithanyexhibitinthegalleryforum.SeeTr.of
OralArg.7(theforumwas"notanykindofanintegralpartoftheChristmasdisplay")see
alsoJEV3234.Inaddition,variousdepartmentsandofficeswithinthecountycourthouse
hadtheirownChristmasdecorations,butthesealsoarenotvisiblefromtheGrand
Staircase.App.167.

TheCityCountyBuildingisseparateandablockremovedfromthecountycourthouseand,
asthenameimplies,isjointlyownedbythecityofPittsburghandAlleghenyCounty.The

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 8/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

city'sportionofthebuildinghousesthecity'sprincipaloffices,includingthemayor's.Id.at
17.Thecityisresponsibleforthebuilding'sGrantStreetentrance,whichhasthreerounded
archessupportedbycolumns.Id.at194,207.

Foranumberofyears,thecityhashadalargeChristmastreeunderthemiddlearch
outsidetheGrantStreetentrance.Followingthispractice,cityemployees,onNovember

Page492U.S.582

17,1986,erecteda45foottreeunderthemiddlearchanddecorateditwithlightsand
ornaments.Id.at218219.Afewdayslater,thecityplacedatthefootofthetreeasign
bearingthemayor'snameandentitled"SalutetoLiberty."Beneaththetitle,thesignstated:

"Duringthisholidayseason,thecityofPittsburghsalutesliberty.Letthesefestivelights
remindusthatwearethekeepersoftheflameoflibertyandourlegacyoffreedom."

JEV41.

Atleastsince1982,thecityhasexpandeditsGrantStreetholidaydisplaytoincludea
symbolicrepresentationofChanukah,an8dayJewishholidaythatbeginsonthe25thday
oftheJewishlunarmonthofKislev.App.138.[Footnote8]The25thofKislevusuallyoccurs
inDecember,[Footnote9]andthusChanukahistheannualJewishholidaythatfallsclosest
toChristmasDayeachyear.In1986,ChanukahbeganatsundownonDecember26.Id.at
138139.

AccordingtoJewishtradition,onthe25thofKislevin164B.C.E.(beforethecommonera
(165B.C.)),theMaccabeesrededicatedtheTempleofJerusalemafterrecapturingitfrom
theGreeks,or,moreaccurately,fromtheGreekinfluencedSeleucidEmpire,inthecourse
ofapoliticalrebellion.Id.

Page492U.S.583

at138.[Footnote10]Chanukahistheholidaywhichcelebratesthatevent.[Footnote11]
TheearlyhistoryofthecelebrationofChanukahisunclearitappearsthattheholiday's
centralritualthelightingoflampswaswellestablishedlongbeforeasingleexplanation
ofthatritualtookhold.[Footnote12]

TheTalmud[Footnote13]explainsthelamplightingritualasacommemorationofanevent
thatoccurredduringtherededicationoftheTemple.TheTemplehousedasevenbranch
menorah,[Footnote14]whichwastobekeptburningcontinuously.Id.at139,144.When
theMaccabeesrededicatedtheTemple,theyhadonlyenoughoiltolastforoneday.But,

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 9/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

accordingtotheTalmud,theoilmiraculouslylastedforeightdays(thelengthoftimeittook
toobtainadditionaloil).Id.at139.[Footnote15]Tocelebrateandpubliclyproclaimthis
miracle,theTalmudprescribesthatitisamitzvah(i.e.,areligiousdeedorcommandment),
id.at140,[Footnote16]forJewstoplacealampwitheightlightsjustoutsidetheentrance
totheirhomesorinafrontwindowduringtheeightdaysofChanukah.Id.at

Page492U.S.584

147.[Footnote17]Wherepracticalityorsafetyfrompersecutionsorequires,thelampmay
beplacedinawindoworinsidethehome.[Footnote18]TheTalmudalsoordainscertain
blessingstoberecitedeachnightofChanukahbeforelightingthelamp.[Footnote19]One
suchbenedictionhasbeentranslatedintoEnglishas"WeareblessingGodwhohas
sanctifiedusandcommandeduswithmitzvotandhastoldustolightthecandlesof
Hanukkah."Id.at306.[Footnote20]

AlthoughJewishlawdoesnotcontainanyruleregardingtheshapeorsubstanceofa
Chanukahlamp(or"hanukkiyyah"),id.at146,238,[Footnote21]itbecamecustomaryto
evokethememoryoftheTemplemenorah.Id.at139,144.TheTemplemenorahwasofa
treeandbranchdesignithadacentralcandlestickwithsixbranches.Id.at259.[Footnote
22]Incontrast,aChanukahmenorahoftreeandbranchdesignhaseightbranchesone
foreachdayoftheholidayplusaninthtoholdtheshamash(anextracandleusedtolight
theothereight).Id.at144.[Footnote23]AlsoincontrasttotheTemplemenorah,the
Chanukahmenorahisnotasanctifiedobjectitneednotbetreatedwithspecialcare.
[Footnote24]

Page492U.S.585

LightingthemenorahistheprimarytraditionassociatedwithChanukah,buttheholidayis
markedbyothertraditionsaswell.OnecustomamongsomeJewsistogivechildren
Chanukahgelt,ormoney.[Footnote25]Anotherisforthechildrentogambletheirgeltusing
adreidel,atopwithfoursides.EachofthefoursidescontainsaHebrewlettertogether,the
fourlettersabbreviateaphrasethatreferstotheChanukahmiracle.Id.at241242.
[Footnote26]

Chanukah,likeChristmas,isaculturaleventaswellasareligiousholiday.Id.at143.
Indeed,theChanukahstoryalwayshashadapoliticalornational,aswellasareligious,
dimension:ittellsofnationalheroisminadditiontodivineintervention.[Footnote27]Also,
Chanukah,likeChristmas,isawinterholidayaccordingtosomehistorians,itwas
associatedinancienttimeswiththewintersolstice.[Footnote28]JustassomeAmericans
celebrateChristmaswithoutregardtoitsreligioussignificance,somenonreligiousAmerican
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 10/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

JewscelebrateChanukahasanexpressionofethnicidentity,and"asaculturalornational
event,ratherthanasaspecificallyreligiousevent."Ibid.[Footnote29]

Page492U.S.586

TheculturalsignificanceofChanukahvarieswiththesettinginwhichtheholidayis
celebrated.IncontemporaryIsrael,thenationalistandmilitaryaspectsoftheChanukah
storyreceivespecialemphasis.[Footnote30]Inthiscountry,thetraditionofgiving
Chanukahgelthastakenongreaterimportancebecauseofthetemporalproximityof
ChanukahtoChristmas.[Footnote31]Indeed,somehavesuggestedthattheproximityof
ChristmasaccountsforthesocialprominenceofChanukahinthiscountry.[Footnote32]
Whateverthereason,ChanukahisobservedbyAmericanJewstoanextentgreaterthanits
religiousimportance

Page492U.S.587

wouldindicate:inthehierarchyofJewishholidays,Chanukahranksfairlylowinreligious
significance.[Footnote33]ThissociallyheightenedstatusofChanukahreflectsitscultural
orseculardimension.[Footnote34]

OnDecember22ofthe1986holidayseason,thecityplacedattheGrantStreetentranceto
theCityCountyBuildingan18footChanukahmenorahofanabstracttreeandbranch
design.Themenorahwasplacednexttothecity's45footChristmastree,againstoneof
thecolumnsthatsupportsthearchintowhichthetreewasset.Themenorahisownedby
Chabad,aJewishgroup,[Footnote35]butisstored,erected,andremovedeachyearby
thecity.Id.at290seealsoBriefforPetitionerinNo.8896,p.4.Thetree,thesign,andthe
menorahwereallremovedonJanuary13.App.58,220221.AppendixB[omitted],p.622,
isaphotographofthetree,thesign,andthemenorah.Id.at212JEV40.

II

ThislitigationbeganonDecember10,1986,whenrespondents,theGreaterPittsburgh
ChapteroftheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionandsevenlocalresidents,filedsuitagainst
thecountyandthecity,seekingpermanentlytoenjointhecountyfromdisplayingthecreche
inthecountycourthouseandthecityfromdisplayingthemenorahinfrontoftheCityCounty

Page492U.S.588

Building.[Footnote36]Respondentsclaimthatthedisplaysofthecrecheandthemenorah
eachviolatetheEstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment,madeapplicabletostate

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 11/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

governmentsbytheFourteenthAmendment.SeeWallacev.Jaffree, 472U.S.38,472U.
S.4855(1985).[Footnote37]Chabadwaspermittedtointervenetodefendthedisplayof
itsmenorah.[Footnote38]

OnMay8,1987,theDistrictCourtdeniedrespondents'requestforapermanentinjunction.
RelyingonLynchv.Donnelly, 465U.S.668(1984),thecourtstatedthat

"thecrechewasbutpartoftheholidaydecorationofthestairwellandaforegroundforthe
highschoolchoirswhichentertainedeachdayatnoon."

App.toPet.forCert.inNo.872050,p.4a.Regardingthemenorah,thecourtconcluded
that"itwasbutaninsignificantpartofanotherholidaydisplay."Ibid.Thecourtalsofound
that"thedisplayshadasecularpurpose,"and"didnotcreateanexcessiveentanglementof
governmentwithreligion."Id.at5a.

Respondentsappealed,andadividedpaneloftheCourtofAppealsreversed.842F.2d655
(CA31988).DistinguishingLynchv.Donnelly,thepanelmajoritydeterminedthatthecreche
andthemenorahmustbeunderstoodasendorsingChristianityandJudaism.Thecourt
observed:"Eachdisplaywaslocatedatorinapublicbuildingdevoted

Page492U.S.589

tocorefunctionsofgovernment."842F.2dat662.Thecourtalsostated:

"Further,whilethemenorahwasplacednearaChristmastree,neitherthecrechenorthe
menorahcanreasonablybedeemedtohavebeensubsumedbyalargerdisplayofnon
religiousitems."

Ibid.Becausetheimpermissibleeffectofendorsingreligionwasasufficientbasisforholding
eachdisplaytobeinviolationoftheEstablishmentClauseunderLemonv.Kurzman, 403
U.S.602(1971),theCourtofAppealsdidnotconsiderwhethereitheronehadan
impermissiblepurposeorresultedinanunconstitutionalentanglementbetweengovernment
andreligion.

Thedissentingjudgestatedthatthecreche,

"accompaniedbypoinsettiaplantsandevergreens,doesnotviolatetheEstablishment
ClausesimplybecauseplasticSantaClausesorreindeerareabsent."

842F.2dat670.Astothemenorah,heasserted:

"IncludingareferencetoChanukahdidnomorethanbroadenthecommemorationofthe
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 12/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

holidayseasonandstressthenotionofsharingitsjoy."

Id.at670671.

Rehearingenbancwasdeniedbya6to5vote.SeeApp.toPet.forCert.inNo.872050,
p.45a.Thecounty,thecity,andChabadeachfiledapetitionforcertiorari.Wegrantedall
threepetitions.488U.S.816(1988).

III

ThisNationisheirtoahistoryandtraditionofreligiousdiversitythatdatesfromthe
settlementoftheNorthAmericanContinent.SectariandifferencesamongvariousChristian
denominationswerecentraltotheoriginsofourRepublic.Sincethen,adherentsofreligions
toonumeroustonamehavemadetheUnitedStatestheirhome,ashavethosewhose
beliefsexpresslyexcludereligion.

Preciselybecauseofthereligiousdiversitythatisournationalheritage,theFoundersadded
totheConstitutionaBillofRights,theveryfirstwordsofwhichdeclare:"Congressshall
makenolawrespectinganestablishmentofreligion,or

Page492U.S.590

prohibitingthefreeexercisethereof...."PerhapsintheearlydaysoftheRepublicthese
wordswereunderstoodtoprotectonlythediversitywithinChristianity,buttodaytheyare
recognizedasguaranteeingreligiouslibertyandequalityto"theinfidel,theatheist,orthe
adherentofanonChristianfaithsuchasIslamorJudaism."Wallacev.Jaffee,472U.at
472U.S.52.[Footnote39]ItissettledlawthatnogovernmentofficialinthisNationmay
violatethesefundamentalconstitutionalrightsregardingmattersofconscience.Id.at472U.
S.49.

Inthecourseofadjudicatingspecificcases,thisCourthascometounderstandthe
EstablishmentClausetomeanthatgovernmentmaynotpromoteoraffiliateitselfwithany
religiousdoctrineororganization,[Footnote40]maynotdiscriminateamongpersonsonthe
basisoftheirreligiousbeliefsandpractices,[Footnote41]

Page492U.S.591

maynotdelegateagovernmentalpowertoareligiousinstitution,[Footnote42]andmaynot
involveitselftoodeeplyinsuchaninstitution'saffairs.[Footnote43]Although"themyriad,

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 13/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

subtlewaysinwhichEstablishmentClausevaluescanbeeroded,"Lynchv.Donnelly,465
U.S.at465U.S.694(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring),arenotsusceptibletoasingleverbal
formulation,thisCourthasattemptedtoencapsulatetheessentialpreceptsofthe
EstablishmentClause.Thus,inEversonv.BoardofEducationofEwing, 330U.S.1
(1947),theCourtgavethisoftenrepeatedsummary:

"The'establishmentofreligion'clauseoftheFirstAmendmentmeansatleastthis:neithera
statenortheFederalGovernmentcansetupachurch.Neithercanpasslawswhichaidone
religion,aidallreligions,orpreferonereligionoveranother.Neithercanforcenorinfluence
apersontogotoorremainawayfromchurchagainsthiswill,orforcehimtoprofessa
beliefordisbeliefinanyreligion.Nopersoncanbepunishedforentertainingorprofessing
religiousbeliefsordisbeliefs,forchurchattendanceornonattendance.Notaxinany
amount,largeorsmall,canbeleviedtosupportanyreligiousactivitiesorinstitutions,
whatevertheymaybecalledorwhateverformtheymayadopttoteachorpracticereligion.
NeitherastatenortheFederalGovernmentcan,openlyorsecretly,participateintheaffairs
ofanyreligiousorganizationsorgroupsandviceversa."

Id.at330U.S.1516.

Page492U.S.592

InLemonv.Kurtzman,supra,theCourtsoughttorefinetheseprinciplesbyfocusingon
three"tests"fordeterminingwhetheragovernmentpracticeviolatestheEstablishment
Clause.UndertheLemonanalysis,astatuteorpracticewhichtouchesuponreligion,ifitis
tobepermissibleundertheEstablishmentClause,musthaveasecularpurposeitmust
neitheradvancenorinhibitreligioninitsprincipalorprimaryeffectanditmustnotfosteran
excessiveentanglementwithreligion.403U.S.at403U.S.612613.Thistrilogyoftests
hasbeenappliedregularlyintheCourt'slaterEstablishmentClausecases.[Footnote44]

Oursubsequentdecisionsfurtherhaverefinedthedefinitionofgovernmentalactionthat
unconstitutionallyadvancesreligion.Inrecentyears,wehavepaidparticularlyclose
attentiontowhetherthechallengedgovernmentalpracticeeitherhasthepurposeoreffect
of"endorsing"religion,aconcernthathaslonghadaplaceinourEstablishmentClause
jurisprudence.SeeEngelv.Vitale, 370U.S.421,370U.S.436(1962).Thus,inWallace
v.Jaffree,472U.S.at472U.S.60,theCourtheldunconstitutionalAlabama'smomentof
silencestatutebecauseitwas"enacted...forthesolepurposeofexpressingtheState's
endorsementofprayeractivities."TheCourtsimilarlyinvalidatedLouisiana's"Creationism
Act"becauseit"endorsesreligion"initspurpose.Edwardsv.Aguillard, 482U.S.578,482
U.S.593(1987).Andtheeducational

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 14/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Page492U.S.593

programinSchoolDist.ofGrandRapidsv.Ball, 473U.S.373,473U.S.389392(1985),
washeldtoviolatetheEstablishmentClausebecauseofits"endorsement"effect.Seealso
TexasMonthly,Inc.v.Bullock, 489U.S.1,489U.S.17(1989)(pluralityopinion)(tax
exemptionlimitedtoreligiousperiodicals"effectivelyendorsesreligiousbelief").

Ofcourse,theword"endorsement"isnotselfdefining.Rather,itderivesitsmeaningfrom
otherwordsthatthisCourthasfoundusefulovertheyearsininterpretingtheEstablishment
Clause.Thus,ithasbeennotedthattheprohibitionagainstgovernmentalendorsementof
religion"preclude[s]governmentfromconveyingorattemptingtoconveyamessagethat
religionoraparticularreligiousbeliefisfavoredorpreferred."Wallacev.Jaffree,472U.S.
at472U.S.70(O'CONNOR,J.,concurringinjudgment)(emphasisadded).Accord,Texas
Monthly,Inc.v.Bullock,489U.S.at489U.S.27,489U.S.28(separateopinionconcurring
injudgment)(reaffirmingthat"governmentmaynotfavorreligiousbeliefoverdisbelief"or
adopta"preferenceforthedisseminationofreligiousideas")Edwardsv.Aguillard,482
U.S.at593("preference"forparticularreligiousbeliefsconstitutesanendorsementof
religion)AbingtonSchoolDistrictv.Schempp, 374U.S.203,374U.S.305(1963)
(Goldberg,J.,concurring)("Thefullestrealizationoftruereligiouslibertyrequiresthat
government...effectnofavoritismamongsectsorbetweenreligionandnonreligion").
Moreover,theterm"endorsement"iscloselylinkedtotheterm"promotion,"Lynchv.
Donnelly,465U.S.at465U.S.691(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring),andthisCourtlongsince
hasheldthatgovernment"maynot...promoteonereligionorreligioustheoryagainst
anotherorevenagainstthemilitantopposite,"Eppersonv.Arkansas, 393U.S.97,393U.
S.104(1968).SeealsoWallacev.Jaffree,472U.S.at472U.S.5960(usingtheconcepts
ofendorsement,promotion,andfavoritisminterchangeably).

Whetherthekeywordis"endorsement,""favoritism,"or"promotion,"theessentialprinciple
remainsthesame.The

Page492U.S.594

EstablishmentClause,attheveryleast,prohibitsgovernmentfromappearingtotakea
positiononquestionsofreligiousbelieforfrom"makingadherencetoareligionrelevantin
anywaytoaperson'sstandinginthepoliticalcommunity."Lynchv.Donnelly,465U.S.at
465U.S.687(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring).

WehavehadoccasioninthepasttoapplyEstablishmentClauseprinciplestothe

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 15/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

government'sdisplayofobjectswithreligioussignificance.InStonev.Graham, 449U.S.
39(1980),weheldthatthedisplayofacopyoftheTenCommandmentsonthewallsof
publicclassroomsviolatestheEstablishmentClause.Closertothefactsofthislitigationis
Lynchv.Donnelly,supra,inwhichweconsideredwhetherthecityofPawtucket,R.I.,had
violatedtheEstablishmentClausebyincludingacrecheinitsannualChristmasdisplay,
locatedinaprivateparkwithinthedowntownshoppingdistrict.Bya5to4decisioninthat
difficultcase,theCourtupheldinclusionofthecrecheinthePawtucketdisplay,holding,
interalia,thattheinclusionofthecrechedidnothavetheimpermissibleeffectofadvancing
orpromotingreligion.[Footnote45]

TherationaleofthemajorityopinioninLynchisnonetooclear:theopinioncontainstwo
strands,neitherofwhichprovidesguidancefordecisioninsubsequentcases.First,the
opinionstatesthattheinclusionofthecrecheinthedisplaywas"nomoreanadvancement
orendorsementofreligion"thanother"endorsements"thisCourthasapprovedinthepast,
465U.S.at465U.S.683buttheopinionoffersnodiscerniblemeasurefordistinguishing
betweenpermissibleandimpermissibleendorsements.Second,theopinionobservesthat
anybenefitthegovernment'sdisplayofthecrechegavetoreligionwasnomorethan
"indirect,remote,andincidental,"ibid.withoutsayinghoworwhy.

Page492U.S.595

AlthoughJUSTICEO'CONNORjoinedthemajorityopinioninLynch,shewrotea
concurrencethatdiffersinsignificantrespectsfromthemajorityopinion.Themain
differenceisthattheconcurrenceprovidesasoundanalyticalframeworkforevaluating
governmentaluseofreligioussymbols.

Firstandforemost,theconcurrencesquarelyrejectsanynotionthatthisCourtwilltolerate
somegovernmentendorsementofreligion.Rather,theconcurrencerecognizesany
endorsementofreligionas"invalid,"id.at465U.S.690,becauseit

"sendsamessagetononadherentsthattheyareoutsiders,notfullmembersofthepolitical
community,andanaccompanyingmessagetoadherentsthattheyareinsiders,favored
membersofthepoliticalcommunity,"

id.at465U.S.688.

Second,theconcurrencearticulatesamethodfordeterminingwhetherthegovernment's
useofanobjectwithreligiousmeaninghastheeffectofendorsingreligion.Theeffectofthe
displaydependsuponthemessagethatthegovernment'spracticecommunicates:the
questionis"whatviewersmayfairlyunderstandtobethepurposeofthedisplay."Id.at465

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 16/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

U.S.692.Thatinquiry,ofnecessity,turnsuponthecontextinwhichthecontestedobject
appears:

"[A]typicalmuseumsetting,thoughnotneutralizingthereligiouscontentofareligious
painting,negatesanymessageofendorsementofthatcontent."

Ibid.Theconcurrencethusemphasizesthattheconstitutionalityofthecrecheinthatcase
dependeduponits"particularphysicalsetting,"ibid.,andfurtherobserves:"Every
governmentpracticemustbejudgedinitsuniquecircumstancestodeterminewhetherit
[endorses]religion,"id.at465U.S.694.[Footnote46]

Page492U.S.596

TheconcurrenceappliedthismodeofanalysistothePawtucketcreche,seeninthecontext
ofthatcity'sholidaycelebrationasawhole.Inadditiontothecreche,thecity'sdisplay
contained:aSantaClaushousewithaliveSantadistributingcandyreindeerpullingSanta's
sleighalive40footChristmastreestrungwithlightsstatuesofcarolersinoldfashioned
dresscandystripedpolesa"talking"wishingwellalargebannerproclaiming"SEASONS
GREETINGS"aminiature"village"withseveralhousesandachurchandvarious"cutout"
figures,includingthoseofaclown,adancingelephant,arobot,andateddybear.See525
F.Supp.1150,1155(RI1981).Theconcurrenceconcludedthat,bothbecausethecrecheis
"atraditionalsymbol"ofChristmas,aholidaywithstrongsecularelements,andbecausethe
crechewas"displayedalongwithpurelysecularsymbols,"thecreche'ssetting"changes
whatviewersmayfairlyunderstandtobethepurposeofthedisplay"and"negatesany
messageofendorsement"of"theChristianbeliefsrepresentedbythecreche."465U.S.at
465U.S.692.

ThefourLynchdissentersagreedwiththeconcurrencethatthecontrollingquestionwas
"whetherPawtucketha[d]runafouloftheEstablishmentClausebyendorsingreligion
throughitsdisplayofthecreche."Id.at465U.S.698,n.3(BRENNAN,J.,dissenting).The
dissentersalsoagreedwiththe

Page492U.S.597

generalpropositionthatthecontextinwhichthegovernmentusesareligioussymbolis
relevantfordeterminingtheanswertothatquestion.Id.at465U.S.705706.Theysimply
reachedadifferentanswer:thedissentersconcludedthattheotherelementsofthe
PawtucketdisplaydidnotnegatetheendorsementofChristianfaithcausedbythepresence
ofthecreche.Theyviewedtheinclusionofthecrecheinthecity'soveralldisplayasplacing
"thegovernment'simprimaturofapprovalontheparticularreligiousbeliefsexemplifiedby

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 17/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

thecreche."Id.at465U.S.701.Thus,theystated:

"Theeffectonminorityreligiousgroups,aswellasonthosewhomayrejectallreligion,isto
conveythemessagethattheirviewsarenotsimilarlyworthyofpublicrecognitionnor
entitledtopublicsupport."

Ibid.

Thus,despitedivergenceatthebottomline,thefiveJusticesinconcurrenceanddissentin
Lynchagreedupontherelevantconstitutionalprinciples:thegovernment'suseofreligious
symbolismisunconstitutionalifithastheeffectofendorsingreligiousbeliefs,andtheeffect
ofthegovernment'suseofreligioussymbolismdependsuponitscontext.Thesegeneral
principlesaresound,andhavebeenadoptedbytheCourtinsubsequentcases.Since
Lynch,theCourthasmadeclearthat,whenevaluatingtheeffectofgovernmentconduct
undertheEstablishmentClause,wemustascertainwhether

"thechallengedgovernmentalactionissufficientlylikelytobeperceivedbyadherentsofthe
controllingdenominationsasanendorsement,andbythenonadherentsasadisapproval,of
theirindividualreligiouschoices."

GrandRapids,473U.S.at473U.S.390.Accordingly,ourpresenttaskistodetermine
whetherthedisplayofthecrecheandthemenorah,intheirrespective"particularphysical
settings,"hastheeffectofendorsingordisapprovingreligiousbeliefs.[Footnote47]

Page492U.S.598

IV

Weturnfirsttothecounty'screchedisplay.Thereisnodoubt,ofcourse,thatthecreche
itselfiscapableofcommunicatingareligiousmessage.SeeLynch,465U.S.at465U.S.
685(majorityopinion)id.at465U.S.692(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring)id.at465U.S.701
(BRENNAN,J.,dissenting)id.at465U.S.727(BLACKMUN,J.,dissenting).Indeed,the
crecheinthislawsuituseswords,aswellasthepictureofthenativityscene,tomakeits
religiousmeaningunmistakablyclear."GlorytoGodintheHighest!"saystheangelinthe
crecheGlorytoGodbecauseofthebirthofJesus.ThispraisetoGodinChristiantermsis
indisputablyreligiousindeedsectarianjustasitiswhensaidintheGospelorina
churchservice.

UndertheCourt'sholdinginLynch,theeffectofacrechedisplayturnsonitssetting.Here,
unlikeinLynch,nothinginthecontextofthedisplaydetractsfromthecreche'sreligious

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 18/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

message.TheLynchdisplaycomprisedaseriesoffiguresandobjects,eachgroupofwhich
haditsownfocalpoint.Santa'shouseandhisreindeerwereobjectsofattentionseparate
fromthecreche,andhadtheirspecificvisualstorytotell.Similarly,whatevera"talking"
wishingwellmaybe,itobviouslywasacenterofattentionseparatefromthecreche.Here,
incontrast,thecrechestandsalone:itisthesingleelementofthedisplayontheGrand
Staircase.[Footnote48]

Page492U.S.599

Thefloraldecorationsurroundingthecrechecannotbeviewedassomehowequivalentto
thesecularsymbolsintheoverallLynchdisplay.Thefloralframe,likeallgoodframes,
servesonlytodrawone'sattentiontothemessageinsidetheframe.Thefloraldecoration
surroundingthecrechecontributesto,ratherthandetractsfrom,theendorsementofreligion
conveyedbythecreche.ItisasifthecountyhadallowedtheHolyNameSocietytodisplay
acrossontheGrandStaircaseatEaster,andthecountyhadsurroundedthecrosswith
Easterlilies.Thecountycouldnotsaythatsurroundingthecrosswithtraditionalflowersof
theseasonwouldnegatetheendorsementofChristianityconveyedbythecrossonthe
GrandStaircase.ItscontentionthatthetraditionalChristmasgreensnegatethe
endorsementeffectofthecrechefaresnobetter.

Nordoesthefactthatthecrechewasthesettingforthecounty'sannualChristmascarol
programdiminishitsreligiousmeaning.First,thecarolprogramin1986lastedonlyfrom
December3toDecember23,andoccupied,atmost,onehouraday.JEV28.Theeffectof
thecrecheonthosewhovieweditwhenthechoirswerenotsingingthevastmajorityof
thetimecannotbenegatedbythepresenceofthechoirprogram.Second,becausesome
ofthecarolsperformedatthesiteofthecrechewerereligiousinnature,[Footnote49]those
carolsweremorelikelytoaugmentthereligiousqualityofthescenethantosecularizeit.

Furthermore,thecrechesitsontheGrandStaircase,the"main"and"mostbeautifulpart"of
thebuildingthatistheseatofcountygovernment.App.157.Noviewercouldreasonably
thinkthatitoccupiesthislocationwithoutthe

Page492U.S.600

supportandapprovalofthegovernment.[Footnote50]Thus,bypermittingthe"displayof
thecrecheinthisparticularphysicalsetting,"Lynch,465U.S.at465U.S.692
(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring),thecountysendsanunmistakablemessagethatitsupports
andpromotestheChristianpraisetoGodthatisthecreche'sreligiousmessage.

ThefactthatthecrechebearsasigndisclosingitsownershipbyaRomanCatholic

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 19/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

organizationdoesnotalterthisconclusion.Onthecontrary,thesignsimplydemonstrates
thatthegovernmentisendorsingthereligiousmessageofthatorganization,ratherthan
communicatingamessageofitsown.ButtheEstablishmentClausedoesnotlimitonlythe
religiouscontentofthegovernment'sowncommunications.Italsoprohibitsthe
government'ssupportandpromotionofreligiouscommunicationsbyreligiousorganizations.
See,e.g.,TexasMonthly,Inc.v.Bullock, 489U.S.1(1989)(governmentsupportofthe
distributionofreligiousmessagesbyreligiousorganizationsviolatestheEstablishment
Clause).Indeed,theveryconceptof"endorsement"conveys

Page492U.S.601

thesenseofpromotingsomeoneelse'smessage.Thus,byprohibitinggovernment
endorsementofreligion,theEstablishmentClauseprohibitspreciselywhatoccurredhere:
thegovernment'slendingitssupporttothecommunicationofareligiousorganization's
religiousmessage.

Finally,thecountyarguesthatitissufficienttovalidatethedisplayofthecrecheonthe
GrandStaircasethatthedisplaycelebratesChristmas,andChristmasisanationalholiday.
Thisargumentobviouslyprovestoomuch.ItwouldallowthecelebrationoftheEucharist
insideacourthouseonChristmasEve.Whilethecountymayhavedoubtsaboutthe
constitutionalstatusofcelebratingtheEucharistinsidethecourthouseunderthe
government'sauspices,seeTr.ofOralArg.89,thisCourtdoesnot.Thegovernmentmay
acknowledgeChristmasasaculturalphenomenon,but,undertheFirstAmendment,itmay
notobserveitasaChristianholydaybysuggestingthatpeoplepraiseGodforthebirthof
Jesus.[Footnote51]

Insum,LynchteachesthatgovernmentmaycelebrateChristmasinsomemannerandform,
butnotinawaythatendorsesChristiandoctrine.Here,AlleghenyCountyhastransgressed
thisline.IthaschosentocelebrateChristmasinawaythathastheeffectofendorsinga
patentlyChristianmessage:GlorytoGodforthebirthofJesusChrist.UnderLynch,andthe
restofourcases,nothingmoreisrequiredto

Page492U.S.602

demonstrateaviolationoftheEstablishmentClause.Thedisplayofthecrecheinthis
context,therefore,mustbepermanentlyenjoined.

JUSTICEKENNEDYandthethreeJusticeswhojoinhimwouldfindthedisplayofthe

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 20/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

crecheconsistentwiththeEstablishmentClause.Hearguesthatthisconclusionnecessarily
followsfromtheCourt'sdecisioninMarshv.Chambers, 463U.S.783(1983),which
sustainedtheconstitutionalityoflegislativeprayer.Postat492U.S.665.Healsoasserts
thatthecreche,eveninthissetting,poses"norealisticrisk"of"represent[ing]aneffortto
proselytize,"postat492U.S.664,havingrepudiatedtheCourt'sendorsementinquiryin
favorofa"proselytization"approach.TheCourt'sanalysisofthecreche,hecontends,
"reflectsanunjustifiedhostilitytowardreligion."Postat492U.S.655.

JUSTICEKENNEDY'sreasonsforpermittingthecrecheontheGrandStaircaseandhis
condemnationoftheCourt'sreasonsfordecidingotherwisearesofarreachingintheir
implicationsthattheyrequirearesponseinsomedepth.

InMarsh,theCourtreliedspecificallyonthefactthatCongressauthorizedlegislativeprayer
atthesametimethatitproducedtheBillofRights.See492U.S.46,supra.JUSTICE
KENNEDY,however,arguesthatMarshlegitimatesall"practiceswithnogreaterpotential
foranestablishmentofreligion"thanthose"acceptedtraditionsdatingbacktothe
Founding."Postat492U.S.669,492U.S.670.Otherwise,theJusticeasserts,such
practicesasournationalmotto("InGodWeTrust")andourPledgeofAllegiance(withthe
phrase"underGod,"addedin1954,Pub.L.396,68Stat.249)areindangerofinvalidity.

Ourpreviousopinionshaveconsideredindictathemottoandthepledge,characterizing
themasconsistentwiththepropositionthatgovernmentmaynotcommunicatean
endorsement

Page492U.S.603

ofreligiousbelief.Lynch,465U.S.at465U.S.693(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring)id.at465
U.S.716717(BRENNAN,J.,dissenting).Weneednotreturntothesubjectof"ceremonial
deism,"seen46,supra,becausethereisanobviousdistinctionbetweencrechedisplays
andreferencestoGodinthemottoandthepledge.Howeverhistorymayaffectthe
constitutionalityofnonsectarianreferencestoreligionbythegovernment,[Footnote52]
historycannotlegitimatepracticesthatdemonstratethegovernment'sallegiancetoa
particularsectorcreed.

Indeed,inMarshitself,theCourtrecognizedthatnoteventhe"uniquehistory"oflegislative
prayer,463U.S.at463U.S.791,canjustifycontemporarylegislativeprayersthathavethe
effectofaffiliatingthegovernmentwithanyonespecificfaithorbelief.Id.at463U.S.794
795.ThelegislativeprayersinvolvedinMarshdidnotviolatethisprinciple,becausethe

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 21/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

particularchaplainhad"removedallreferencestoChrist."Id.at463U.S.793,n.14.Thus,
MarshplainlydoesnotstandforthesweepingpropositionJUSTICEKENNEDYapparently
wouldascribetoit,namely,thatallacceptedpractices200yearsoldandtheirequivalents
areconstitutionaltoday.NorcanMarsh,givenitsfactsanditsreasoning,compelthe
conclusionthatthedisplayofthecrecheinvolvedinthislawsuitisconstitutional.Although
JUSTICEKENNEDYsaysthathe"cannotcomprehend"howthecrechedisplaycouldbe
invalidafterMarsh,postat492U.S.665,surelyheisabletodistinguishbetweena
specificallyChristiansymbol,likeacreche,andmoregeneralreligiousreferences,likethe
legislativeprayersinMarsh.

Page492U.S.604

JUSTICEKENNEDY'sreadingofMarshwouldgutthecoreoftheEstablishmentClauseas
thisCourtunderstandsit.ThehistoryofthisNation,itisperhapssadtosay,contains
numerousexamplesofofficialactsthatendorsedChristianityspecifically.SeeM.Borden,
Jews,Turks,andInfidels(1984).[Footnote53]Someoftheseexamplesdatebacktothe
FoundingoftheRepublic,[Footnote54]butthisheritageofofficialdiscrimination

Page492U.S.605

againstnonChristianshasnoplaceinthejurisprudenceoftheEstablishmentClause.
WhateverelsetheEstablishmentClausemaymean(andwehaveheldittomeannoofficial
preferenceevenforreligionovernonreligion,see,e.g.,TexasMonthly,Inc.v.Bullock, 489
U.S.1(1989)),itcertainlymeans,attheveryleast,thatgovernmentmaynotdemonstratea
preferenceforoneparticularsectorcreed(includingapreferenceforChristianityoverother
religions)."TheclearestcommandoftheEstablishmentClauseisthatonereligious
denominationcannotbeofficiallypreferredoveranother."Larsonv.Valente, 456U.S.228,
456U.S.244(1982).TherehavebeenbreachesofthiscommandthroughoutthisNation's
history,buttheycannotdiminishinanywaytheforceofthecommand.Cf.Laycock,supra,
n39,at923.[Footnote55]

AlthoughJUSTICEKENNEDY'smisreadingofMarshispredicatedonafailuretorecognize
thebedrockEstablishmentClauseprinciplethat,regardlessofhistory,governmentmaynot
demonstrateapreferenceforaparticularfaith,evenheisforcedtoacknowledgethatsome
instancesofsuchfavoritismareconstitutionallyintolerable.Postat492U.S.664665,n.3.
Heconcedesalsothattheterm"endorsement"longhasbeenanotherwayofdefininga
forbidden"preference"for

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 22/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Page492U.S.606

aparticularsect,postat492U.S.668669,buthewouldrepudiatetheCourt's
endorsementinquiryasa"jurisprudenceofminutiae,"postat492U.S.674,becauseit
examinestheparticularcontextsinwhichthegovernmentemploysreligioussymbols.

Thislabel,ofcourse,couldbetaggedonmanyareasofconstitutionaladjudication.For
example,indeterminingwhethertheFourthAmendmentrequiresawarrantandprobable
causebeforethegovernmentmayconductaparticularsearchorseizure,

"wehavenothesitatedtobalancethegovernmentalandprivacyintereststoassessthe
practicalityofthewarrantandprobablecauserequirementsintheparticularcontext,"

Skinnerv.RailwayLaborExecutives'Assn., 489U.S.602,489U.S.619(1989)
(emphasisadded),aninquirythat"dependsonallofthecircumstancessurroundingthe
searchorseizureandthenatureofthesearchorseizureitself,'"ibid.,quotingUnitedStates
v.MontoyadeHernandez, 473U.S.531,473U.S.537(1985)seealsoTreasury
Employeesv.VonRaab, 489U.S.656,489U.S.666(1989)(repeatingtheprinciplethat
theapplicabilityofthewarrantrequirementturnson"theparticularcontext"ofthesearchat
issue).Itisperhapsunfortunate,butnonethelessinevitable,thatthebroadlanguageof
manyclauseswithintheBillofRightsmustbetranslatedintoadjudicatoryprinciplesthat
realizetheirfullmeaningonlyaftertheirapplicationtoaseriesofconcretecases.

Indeed,notevenunderJUSTICEKENNEDY'spreferredapproachcantheEstablishment
Clausebetransformedintoanexceptiontothisrule.TheJusticewouldsubstitutetheterm
"proselytization"for"endorsement,"postat492U.S.659660,492U.S.661,492U.S.
664,buthis"proselytization"testsuffersfromthesame"defect,"ifonemustcallitthat,of
requiringclosefactualanalysis.JUSTICEKENNEDYhasnodoubt,

"forexample,thatthe[Establishment]Clauseforbidsacitytopermitthepermanenterection
ofalargeLatincrossontheroofofcityhall...becausesuchanobtrusiveyearround
religiousdisplay

Page492U.S.607

wouldplacethegovernment'sweightbehindanobviousefforttoproselytizeonbehalfofa
particularreligion."

Postat492U.S.661.Healsosuggeststhatacitywoulddemonstrateanunconstitutional
preferenceforChristianityifitdisplayedaChristiansymbolduringeverymajorChristian
holiday,butdidnotdisplaythereligioussymbolsofotherfaithsduringotherreligious
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 23/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

holidays.Postat492U.S.664665,n.3.But,forJUSTICEKENNEDY,woulditbeenough
ofapreferenceforChristianityifthatcityeachyeardisplayedacrechefor40daysduring
theChristmasseasonandacrossfor40daysduringLent(andneverthesymbolsofother
religions)?Ifso,thenwhatiftherewerenocross,butthe40daycrechedisplaycontaineda
signexhortingthecity'scitizens"toofferuptheirdevotionstoGodtheirCreator,andhis
SonJesusChrist,theRedeemeroftheworld"?Seen.53,supra.

Thepointoftheserhetoricalquestionsisobvious.Inordertodefinepreciselywhat
governmentcouldandcouldnotdounderJUSTICEKENNEDY's"proselytization"test,the
Courtwouldhavetodecideaseriesofcaseswithparticularfactpatternsthatfallalongthe
spectrumofgovernmentreferencestoreligion(fromthepermanentdisplayofacrossatop
cityhalltoapassingreferencetodivineProvidenceinanofficialaddress).Ifonewishedto
be"uncharitable"toJUSTICEKENNEDY,seepostat492U.S.675,onecouldsaythathis
methodologyrequirescountingthenumberofdaysduringwhichthegovernmentdisplays
ChristiansymbolsandsubtractingfromthisthenumberofdaysduringwhichnonChristian
symbolsaredisplayed,dividedbythenumberofdifferentnonChristianreligions
representedinthesedisplays,andthensomehowfactoringintothisequationthe
prominenceofthedisplay'slocationandthedegreetowhicheachsymbolpossessesan
inherentlyproselytizingquality.JUSTICEKENNEDY,ofcourse,coulddefendhispositionby
pointingtotheinevitablyfactspecificnatureofthequestionwhetheraparticular
governmentalpracticesignalsthegovernment's

Page492U.S.608

unconstitutionalpreferenceforaspecificreligiousfaith.ButbecauseJUSTICEKENNEDY's
formulationofthisessentialEstablishmentClauseinquiryisnolessfactintensivethanthe
"endorsement"formulationadoptedbytheCourt,JUSTICEKENNEDYshouldbewaryof
accusingtheCourt'sformulationas"usinglittlemorethanintuitionandatapemeasure,"
postat492U.S.675,lesthefindhisownformulationconvictedonanidenticalcharge.

Indeed,perhapstheonlyrealdistinctionbetweenJUSTICEKENNEDY's"proselytization"
testandtheCourt's"endorsement"inquiryisaburdenof"unmistakable"claritythat
JUSTICEKENNEDYapparentlywouldrequireofgovernmentfavoritismforspecificsectsin
ordertoholdthefavoritisminviolationoftheEstablishmentClause.Postat492U.S.664
665,n.3.Thequestionwhetheraparticularpractice"wouldplacethegovernment'sweight
behindanobviousefforttoproselytizeforaparticularreligion,"postat492U.S.661,is
muchthesameaswhetherthepracticedemonstratesthegovernment'ssupport,promotion,
or"endorsement"oftheparticularcreedofaparticularsectexcepttotheextentthatit
requiresan"obvious"allegiancebetweenthegovernmentandthesect.[Footnote56]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 24/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Ourcases,however,imposenosuchburdenondemonstratingthatthegovernmenthas
favoredaparticularsectorcreed.Onthecontrary,wehaveexpresslyrequired"strict

Page492U.S.609

scrutiny"ofpracticessuggesting"adenominationalpreference,"Larsonv.Valente,456U.S.
at456U.S.246,inkeepingwith"theunwaveringvigilancethattheConstitutionrequires'"
againstanyviolationoftheEstablishmentClause.Bowenv.Kendrick, 487U.S.589,487
U.S.623(1988)(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring),quotingid.at487U.S.648(dissenting
opinion)seealsoLynch,465U.S.at465U.S.694(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring)("[T]he
myriad,subtlewaysinwhichEstablishmentClausevaluescanbeeroded"necessitates
"carefuljudicialscrutiny"of"[g]overnmentpracticesthatpurporttocelebrateoracknowledge
eventswithreligioussignificance").Thus,whenallissaidanddone,JUSTICEKENNEDY's
efforttoabandonthe"endorsement"inquiryinfavorofhis"proselytization"testseems
nothingmorethananattempttolowerconsiderablythelevelofscrutinyinEstablishment
Clausecases.Wechoose,however,toadheretothevigilancetheCourthasmanagedto
maintainthusfar,andtotheendorsementinquirythatreflectsourvigilance.[Footnote57]

Page492U.S.610

AlthoughJUSTICEKENNEDYrepeatedlyaccusestheCourtofharboringa"latenthostility"
or"callousindifference"towardreligion,postat492U.S.657,492U.S.664,nothingcould
befurtherfromthetruth,andtheaccusationscouldbesaidtobeasoffensiveastheyare
absurd.JUSTICEKENNEDYapparentlyhasmisperceivedarespectforreligiouspluralism,
arespectcommandedbytheConstitution,ashostilityorindifferencetoreligion.No
misperceptioncouldbemoreantitheticaltothevaluesembodiedintheEstablishment
Clause.

JUSTICEKENNEDY'saccusationsareshotfromaweapontriggeredbythefollowing
proposition:ifgovernmentmaycelebratethesecularaspectsofChristmas,thenitmustbe
allowedtocelebratethereligiousaspectsaswellbecause,otherwise,thegovernment
wouldbediscriminatingagainstcitizenswhocelebrateChristmasasareligious,andnotjust
asecular,holiday.Postat492U.S.663664.Thisproposition,however,isflawedatits
foundation.Thegovernmentdoesnotdiscriminateagainstanycitizenonthebasisofthe
citizen'sreligiousfaithifthegovernmentissecularinitsfunctionsandoperations.Onthe
contrary,theConstitutionmandatesthatthegovernmentremainsecular,ratherthanaffiliate
itselfwithreligiousbeliefsorinstitutions,preciselyinordertoavoiddiscriminatingamong
citizensonthebasisoftheirreligiousfaiths.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 25/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Asecularstate,itmustberemembered,isnotthesameasanatheisticorantireligious
state.Asecularstateestablishesneitheratheismnorreligionasitsofficialcreed.JUSTICE
KENNEDYthushasitexactlybackwardswhenhesaysthatenforcingtheConstitution's
requirementthatgovernment

Page492U.S.611

remainsecularisaprescriptionoforthodoxy.Postat492U.S.678.Itfollowsdirectlyfrom
theConstitution'sproscriptionagainstgovernmentaffiliationwithreligiousbeliefsor
institutionsthatthereisnoorthodoxyonreligiousmattersinthesecularstate.Although
JUSTICEKENNEDYaccusestheCourtof"anOrwellianrewritingofhistory,"ibid.,perhaps
itisJUSTICEKENNEDYhimselfwhohasslippedintoaformofOrwelliannewspeakwhen
heequatestheconstitutionalcommandofseculargovernmentwithaprescribedorthodoxy.

Tobesure,inapluralisticsociety,theremaybesomewouldbetheocratswhowishthat
theirreligionwereanestablishedcreed,andsomeofthemperhapsmaybeevenaudacious
enoughtoclaimthatthelackofestablishedreligiondiscriminatesagainsttheirpreferences.
Butthisclaimgetsnorelief,foritcontradictsthefundamentalpremiseoftheEstablishment
Clauseitself.TheantidiscriminationprincipleinherentintheEstablishmentClause
necessarilymeansthatwouldbediscriminatorsonthebasisofreligioncannotprevail.

Forthisreason,theclaimthatprohibitinggovernmentfromcelebratingChristmasasa
religiousholidaydiscriminatesagainstChristiansinfavorofnonadherentsmustfail.
CelebratingChristmasasareligious,asopposedtoasecular,holiday,necessarilyentails
professing,proclaiming,orbelievingthatJesusofNazareth,borninamangerinBethlehem,
istheChrist,theMessiah.IfthegovernmentcelebratesChristmasasareligiousholiday(for
example,byissuinganofficialproclamationsaying:"WerejoiceinthegloryofChrist's
birth!"),itmeansthatthegovernmentreallyisdeclaringJesustobetheMessiah,a
specificallyChristianbelief.Incontrast,confiningthegovernment'sowncelebrationof
Christmastotheholiday'ssecularaspectsdoesnotfavorthereligiousbeliefsofnon
ChristiansoverthoseofChristians.Rather,itsimplypermitsthegovernmentto
acknowledgetheholidaywithoutexpressinganallegianceto

Page492U.S.612

Christianbeliefs,anallegiancethatwouldtrulyfavorChristiansovernonChristians.Tobe
sure,someChristiansmaywishtoseethegovernmentproclaimitsallegiancetoChristianity
inareligiouscelebrationofChristmas,buttheConstitutiondoesnotpermitthegratification
ofthatdesire,whichwouldcontradictthe"thelogicofsecularliberty'"itisthepurposeofthe
EstablishmentClausetoprotect.SeeLarsonv.Valente,456U.S.at456U.S.244,quoting
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 26/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

B.Bailyn,TheIdeologicalOriginsoftheAmericanRevolution265(1967).

Ofcourse,notallreligiouscelebrationsofChristmaslocatedongovernmentpropertyviolate
theEstablishmentClause.Itobviouslyisnotunconstitutional,forexample,foragroupof
parishionersfromalocalchurchtogocarolingthroughacityparkonanySundayinAdvent
orforaChristianclubatapublicuniversitytosingcarolsduringtheirChristmasmeeting.Cf.
Widmarv.Vincent, 454U.S.263(1981).[Footnote58]Thereasonisthatactivitiesofthis
naturedonotdemonstratethegovernment'sallegianceto,orendorsementof,theChristian
faith.

Equallyobvious,however,isthepropositionthatnotallproclamationsofChristianfaith
locatedongovernmentpropertyarepermittedbytheEstablishmentClausejustbecause
theyoccurduringtheChristmasholidayseason,astheexampleofaMassinthe
courthousesurelyillustrates.Andoncethejudgmenthasbeenmadethataparticular
proclamationofChristianbelief,whendisseminatedfromaparticularlocationon
governmentproperty,hastheeffectofdemonstratingthegovernment'sendorsementof
Christianfaith,thenitnecessarilyfollowsthatthepracticemustbeenjoinedtoprotectthe
constitutionalrightsofthosecitizenswhofollowsomecreedotherthanChristianity.Itisthus
incontrovertiblethattheCourt'sdecisiontoday,premisedonthedeterminationthatthe
crechedisplayontheGrandStaircasedemonstrates

Page492U.S.613

thecounty'sendorsementofChristianity,doesnotrepresentahostilityorindifferenceto
religionbut,instead,therespectforreligiousdiversitythattheConstitutionrequires.
[Footnote59]

VI

ThedisplayoftheChanukahmenorahinfrontoftheCityCountyBuildingmaywellpresent
acloserconstitutionalquestion.Themenorah,onemustrecognize,isareligioussymbol:it
servestocommemoratethemiracleoftheoilasdescribedintheTalmud.Butthe
menorah'smessageisnotexclusivelyreligious.Themenorahistheprimaryvisual

Page492U.S.614

symbolforaholidaythat,likeChristmas,hasbothreligiousandseculardimensions.
[Footnote60]

Moreover,themenorahherestandsnexttoaChristmastreeandasignsalutingliberty.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 27/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

Whilenochallengehasbeenmadeheretothedisplayofthetreeandthesign,their
presenceisobviouslyrelevantindeterminingtheeffectofthemenorah'sdisplay.The
necessaryresultofplacingamenorahnexttoaChristmastreeistocreatean"overall
holidaysetting"thatrepresentsbothChristmasandChanukahtwoholidays,notone.See
Lynch,465U.S.at465U.S.692(O'CONNOR,J.,concurring).

ThemerefactthatPittsburghdisplayssymbolsofbothChristmasandChanukahdoesnot
endtheconstitutionalinquiry.IfthecitycelebratesbothChristmasandChanukahas
religiousholidays,thenitviolatestheEstablishmentClause.

Page492U.S.615

ThesimultaneousendorsementofJudaismandChristianityisnolessconstitutionallyinfirm
thantheendorsementofChristianityalone.[Footnote61]

Conversely,ifthecitycelebratesbothChristmasandChanukahassecularholidays,thenits
conductisbeyondthereachoftheEstablishmentClause.Becausegovernmentmay
celebrateChristmasasasecularholiday,[Footnote62]itfollowsthatgovernmentmayalso
acknowledgeChanukahasasecularholiday.Simplyput,itwouldbeaformof
discriminationagainstJewstoallowPittsburghtocelebrateChristmasasaculturaltradition
whilesimultaneouslydisallowingthecity'sacknowledgmentofChanukahasa
contemporaneousculturaltradition.[Footnote63]

Page492U.S.616

Accordingly,therelevantquestionforEstablishmentClausepurposesiswhetherthe
combineddisplayofthetree,thesign,andthemenorahhastheeffectofendorsingboth
ChristianandJewishfaiths,orrathersimplyrecognizesthatbothChristmasandChanukah
arepartofthesamewinterholidayseason,whichhasattainedasecularstatusinour
society.Ofthetwointerpretationsofthisparticulardisplay,thelatterseemsfarmore
plausible,andisalsoinlinewithLynch.[Footnote64]

TheChristmastree,unlikethemenorah,isnotitselfareligioussymbol.AlthoughChristmas
treesoncecarriedreligiousconnotations,todaytheytypifythesecularcelebrationof
Christmas.SeeAmericanCivilLibertiesUnionofIllinoisv.St.Charles,794F.2d265,271
(CA7),cert.denied,479U.S.961(1986)L.Tribe,AmericanConstitutionalLaw1295(2d
ed.1988)(Tribe).[Footnote65]NumerousAmericansplace

Page492U.S.617

ChristmastreesintheirhomeswithoutsubscribingtoChristianreligiousbeliefs,andwhen
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 28/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

thecity'streestandsaloneinfrontoftheCityCountyBuilding,itisnotconsideredan
endorsementofChristianfaith.Indeed,a40footChristmastreewasoneoftheobjectsthat
validatedthecrecheinLynch.ThewidelyacceptedviewoftheChristmastreeasthe
preeminentsecularsymboloftheChristmasholidayseasonservestoemphasizethe
secularcomponentofthemessagecommunicatedbyotherelementsofanaccompanying
holidaydisplay,includingtheChanukahmenorah.[Footnote66]

Thetree,moreover,isclearlythepredominantelementinthecity'sdisplay.The45foottree
occupiesthecentralpositionbeneaththemiddlearchwayinfrontoftheGrantStreet
entrancetotheCityCountyBuildingthe18footmenorahispositionedtooneside.Given
thisconfiguration,itismuchmoresensibletointerpretthemeaningofthemenorahinlight
ofthetree,ratherthanviceversa.Intheshadowofthetree,themenorahisreadily
understoodassimplyarecognitionthatChristmasisnottheonlytraditionalwayof
observingthewinterholidayseason.Inthesecircumstances,then,thecombinationofthe
treeandthemenorahcommunicatesnotasimultaneousendorsementofboththeChristian

Page492U.S.618

andJewishfaiths,butinstead,asecularcelebrationofChristmascoupledwithan
acknowledgmentofChanukahasacontemporaneousalternativetradition.

Althoughthecityhasusedasymbolwithreligiousmeaningasitsrepresentationof
Chanukah,thisisnotacaseinwhichthecityhasreasonablealternativesthatareless
religiousinnature.ItisdifficulttoimagineapredominantlysecularsymbolofChanukahthat
thecitycouldplacenexttoitsChristmastree.An18footdreidelwouldlookoutofplace,
andmightbeinterpretedbysomeasmockingthecelebrationofChanukah.Theabsenceof
amoresecularalternativesymbolisitselfpartofthecontextinwhichthecity'sactionsmust
bejudgedindeterminingthelikelyeffectofitsuseofthemenorah.Wherethegovernment's
secularmessagecanbeconveyedbytwosymbols,onlyoneofwhichcarriesreligious
meaning,anobserverreasonablymightinferfromthefactthatthegovernmenthaschosen
tousethereligioussymbolthatthegovernmentmeanstopromotereligiousfaith.See
AbingtonSchoolDistrictv.Schempp,374U.S.at374U.S.295(BRENNAN,J.,concurring)
(EstablishmentClauseforbidsuseofreligiousmeanstoservesecularendswhensecular
meanssuffice)seealsoTribe1285.[Footnote67]Butwhere,ashere,nosuchchoicehas
beenmade,thisinferenceofendorsementisnotpresent.[Footnote68]

Page492U.S.619

Themayor'ssignfurtherdiminishesthepossibilitythatthetreeandthemenorahwillbe
interpretedasadualendorsementofChristianityandJudaism.Thesignstatesthat,during
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 29/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

theholidayseason,thecitysalutesliberty.Moreover,thesigndrawsuponthethemeof
light,commontobothChanukahandChristmasaswinterfestivals,andlinksthattheme
withthisNation'slegacyoffreedom,whichallowsanAmericantocelebratetheholiday
seasoninwhateverwayhewishes,religiouslyorotherwise.Whilenosigncandisclaiman
overwhelmingmessageofendorsement,seeStonev.Graham,449U.S.at449U.S.41,an
"explanatoryplaque"mayconfirmthatinparticularcontextsthegovernment'sassociation
withareligioussymboldoesnotrepresentthegovernment'ssponsorshipofreligious
beliefs.SeeLynch,465U.S.at465U.S.707(BRENNAN,J.,dissenting).Here,themayor's
signservestoconfirmwhatthecontextalreadyreveals:thatthedisplayofthemenorahis
notanendorsementofreligiousfaith,butsimplyarecognitionofculturaldiversity.

Page492U.S.620

Givenalltheseconsiderations,itisnot"sufficientlylikely"thatresidentsofPittsburghwill
perceivethecombineddisplayofthetree,thesign,andthemenorahasan"endorsement"
or"disapproval...oftheirindividualreligiouschoices."GrandRapids,473U.S.at473U.
S.390.Whileanadjudicationofthedisplay'seffectmusttakeintoaccounttheperspective
ofonewhoisneitherChristiannorJewish,aswellasofthosewhoadheretoeitherofthese
religions,ibid.,theconstitutionalityofitseffectmustalsobejudgedaccordingtothe
standardofa"reasonableobserver,"seeWittersv.WashingtonDept.ofServicesforBlind,
474U.S.481,474U.S.493(1986)(O'CONNOR,J.,concurringinpartandconcurringin
judgment)seealsoTribe1296(challengedgovernmentpracticesshouldbejudged"from
theperspectiveofareasonablenonadherent'").Whenmeasuredagainstthisstandard,the
menorahneednotbeexcludedfromthisparticulardisplay.TheChristmastreealoneinthe
PittsburghlocationdoesnotendorseChristianbeliefand,onthefactsbeforeus,the
additionofthemenorah"cannotfairlybeunderstoodto"resultinthesimultaneous
endorsementofChristianandJewishfaiths.Lynch,465U.S.at465U.S.693(O'CONNOR,
J.,concurring).Onthecontrary,forpurposesoftheEstablishmentClause,thecity'soverall
displaymustbeunderstoodasconveyingthecity'ssecularrecognitionofdifferenttraditions
forcelebratingthewinterholidayseason.[Footnote69]

Theconclusionherethat,inthisparticularcontext,themenorah'sdisplaydoesnothavean
effectofendorsingreligious

Page492U.S.621

faithdoesnotforeclosethepossibilitythatthedisplayofthemenorahmightviolateeither
the"purpose"or"entanglement"prongoftheLemonanalysis.Theseissueswerenot
addressedbytheCourtofAppeals,andmaybeconsideredbythatcourtonremand.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 30/99
3/6/2016 CountyofAlleghenyv.ACLU::492U.S.573(1989)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter

[Footnote70]

VII

Lynchv.Donnellyconfirms,andinnowayrepudiates,thelongstandingconstitutional
principlethatgovernmentmaynotengageinapracticethathastheeffectofpromotingor
endorsingreligiousbeliefs.Thedisplayofthecrecheinthecountycourthousehasthis
unconstitutionaleffect.ThedisplayofthemenorahinfrontoftheCityCountyBuilding,
however,doesnothavethiseffect,givenits"particularphysicalsetting."

ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsisaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart,andthecases
areremandedforfurtherproceedings.

Itissoordered.

Page492U.S.623

*TogetherwithNo.8890,Chabadv.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionetal.,andNo.8896,
CityofPittsburghv.AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion,GreaterPittsburghChapter,etal.,also
oncertioraritothesamecourt.

[Footnote1]

See8EncyclopediaofReligion,"Jesus,"15,18(1987).

[Footnote2]

See3EncyclopediaofReligion,"Christmas,"460(1987).Someeasternchurches,however,
havenotadoptedDecember25astheFeastoftheNativity,retainingJanuary6asthedate
forcelebratingboththebirthandthebaptismofJesus.R.Myers,Celebrations:The
CompleteBookofAmericanHolidays15,17(1972)(Myers).

[Footnote3]

"[T]heChristmasholidayinournationalculturecontainsbothsecularandsectarian
elements."Lynchv.Donnelly, 465U.S.668,465U.S.709,andn.15(1984)(BRENNAN,
J.,dissenting).IthasbeensuggestedthattheculturalaspectofChristmasinthiscountry
nowexceedsthetheologicalsignificanceoftheholiday.SeeJ.Barnett,TheAmerican
Christmas,aStudyinNationalCulture23(1954)(Barnett)("[B]ythelatterpartofthelast
century,thefolksecularaspectsofChristmasweretakingprecedenceoveritsreligious
ones").

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/492/573/case.html 31/99