Statements (89)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
March 2, 2005
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Often studied in law schools
Relevant to discussions on religious freedom Implications for religious expression in public spaces Examined the intent behind the displays Analysis of the ruling's implications for future cases Analyzed under the Lemon test for government actions |
| gptkbp:case_documentation_source |
Available in Supreme Court archives
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
Documented in legal databases
Summary available in legal literature 03-1693 |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Unconstitutional under the First Amendment
Majority opinion emphasized secularism Majority opinion emphasized secular purpose Affected public display policies nationwide Ruling against government endorsement of religion Ten Commandments displays were unconstitutional Set a precedent for future cases on religious displays Unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause Resulted in removal of the Ten Commandments from public property |
| gptkbp:case_public_debate |
Subject of public debate and discussion.
|
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Important for church-state relations
Significant for First Amendment jurisprudence |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Constitutional law case
Civil rights case |
| gptkbp:championship |
5-4
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
gptkb:Rehnquist_Court |
| gptkbp:date |
March 2, 2005
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
Dissent argued for historical context of religion Religious heritage of the United States Dissent argued for historical context of the display Dissent viewed the display as historical and cultural |
| gptkbp:docket_number |
03-1693
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
June 27, 2005
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Part of a series of cases on religious displays
Part of the ongoing debate on the role of religion in government |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Mc Creary County v. ACLU
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced future cases on religious displays
Influenced public policy on religious displays Influenced future cases regarding religious displays Led to discussions on religious freedom |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:American_Civil_Liberties_Union
gptkb:Mc_Creary_County,_Kentucky |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
Frequently cited in legal arguments
|
| gptkbp:is_debated_in |
Government endorsement of religion
|
| gptkbp:judges |
Majority found no secular purpose in the display
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Judicial review of local government actions
Constitutionality of state actions Constitutional interpretation of the First Amendment |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Part of the broader discussion on religious freedom
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Reinforced the separation of church and state
Reaffirmed the Establishment Clause Impact on local government policies regarding religious displays |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Violation of the Establishment Clause
Display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings Arguments centered on religious endorsement by government |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Struck down the display of the Ten Commandments
Significant for First Amendment jurisprudence Ruling against government endorsement of religion Described as a victory for secularism in government |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Separation of church and state
|
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
ACLU represented the plaintiffs
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
Separation of church and state
|
| gptkbp:location |
gptkb:Mc_Creary_County,_Kentucky
|
| gptkbp:material |
Involved a challenge to religious displays
Involved a challenge to a county's display of the Ten Commandments |
| gptkbp:outcome |
The court ruled against Mc Creary County
Court ruled against Mc Creary County |
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
Establishment Clause interpretation Set a precedent for similar cases Influenced future rulings on religious symbols Set a judicial precedent for future cases on religious displays |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_David_Souter
Secular purpose of government |
| gptkbp:public_policy_impact |
Influenced local government policies on religious displays
|
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Controversial and widely debated
Controversial public debate on religious symbols |
| gptkbp:publications |
Published in legal journals
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Van_Orden_v._Perry
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Addressed the separation of church and state
Clarified the interpretation of the Establishment Clause Clarified the limits of religious displays in government settings |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Wallace_v._Jaffree
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
5
|