Misplaced Pages

American Civil Liberties Union v. Schundler

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Redirected from ACLU v. Schundler) United States federal court case

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Schundler
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case name The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, on behalf of its members, Robert Lander, Adam Jacobs, Joel Solow and Ann Sorrel v. Bret Schundler, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Jersey City, New Jersey; The City Council of Jersey City, New Jersey; City of Jersey City, New Jersey
ArguedAugust 6, 1998
DecidedFebruary 16, 1999
Citation168 F.3d 92
Case history
Prior historyInjunction granted, 931 F. Supp. 1180 (D.N.J. 1995); affirmed, 104 F.3d 1435 (1997).
Subsequent historyCert. denied, 520 U.S. 1265 (June 9, 1997)
Court membership
Judges sittingRichard Lowell Nygaard, Samuel Alito, Marjorie O. Rendell
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Rendell
DissentNygaard
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1999), is a United States federal case establishing standards for a government-sponsored holiday display to contain religious symbols. It was decided by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on February 16, 1999.

Background

During the holiday season, Jersey City, New Jersey erected a nativity scene, a Christmas tree and a menorah on city property in front of City Hall. The scene included Mary, Joseph, Baby Jesus and the Three Wisemen. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the city to stop putting religious symbols on public property. Jersey City put up a sign next to the display that read "Through this display and others throughout the year, the City of Jersey City is pleased to celebrate the diverse cultural and ethnic heritages of its peoples." The ACLU filed a lawsuit saying that this display was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Federal District Court of New Jersey ordered the city to stop erecting its holiday display. The City decided to appeal this ruling. The City also erected a modified holiday display with the original menorah, Christmas tree and nativity and the City added a Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, a sled, Kwanzaa symbols on the tree and two signs. The ACLU filed for contempt. After some back and forth with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court ruled that the modified display did not violate the First Amendment.

Decision

The majority opinion of the court was written by Circuit Judge Samuel Alito. The Court used the test for the Establishment Clause from Lemon v. Kurtzman. This test looks at "whether a challenged government practice had a secular purpose, whether its principal or primary effect advanced or inhibited religion, and whether it created an excessive entanglement of the government with religion." The Court also relied on two prior Supreme Court cases Lynch v. Donnelly and County of Allegheny v. ACLU. The Court stated that "we are unable to perceive any meaningful constitutional distinction between the display at issue here and those that the Supreme Court upheld in Lynch and Allegheny County." "None of these displays conveyed a message of government endorsement of Christianity, Judaism, or of religion in general but instead 'sent a message of pluralism and freedom to choose one's own beliefs." The Court decided that the modified display did not violate the First Amendment.

References

  1. American Civil Liberties Union v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1999).
  2. ^ Schundler, 168 F.3d at 95.
  3. ^ Schundler, 168 F.3d at 96.
  4. American Civil Liberties Union v. Schundler, 931 F. Supp. 1180 (D.N.J. 1995).
  5. ^ Schundler, 168 F.3d at 97, citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612 (1971).
  6. Schundler, 168 F.3d at 99-101, citing Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) and County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 673 (1989).
  7. Schundler, 168 F.3d at 108.
  8. Schundler, 168 F.3d at 107, quoting Allegheny County, 492 U.S. at 633.
  9. Schundler, 168 F.3d at 107.

External links

United States First Amendment case law
Establishment Clause
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Free Exercise Clause
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Freedom of speech (portal)
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Defamation and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Overbreadth
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Freedom of the press
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Freedom of assembly
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Freedom of association
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections
Freedom to petition
Categories:
American Civil Liberties Union v. Schundler Add topic