COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER 492 U.S. 573 (1989) CASE BRIEF

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER

492 U.S. 573 (1989)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over the constitutionality of two recurring holiday displays located on public property in downtown Pittsburgh. This was an appeal by the Court of Appeals from the reversal of the denial of injunctive relief by the District Court.

FACTS: Since 1981, the county has permitted a Roman Catholic group to display a crche in the county courthouse during the Christmas holiday season. It includes figures of the infant Jesus, Mary, Joseph, farm animals, shepherds, and wise men, all placed in or before a wooden representation of a manager, which has at its crest an angel bearing a banner that proclaims 'Gloria in Excelsis Deo!' No figures of Santa Claus or other decorations appeared on the Grand Staircase when the crche was displayed. The city also has a large Christmas tree at its main entrance. The city placed at the foot of the tree a sign bearing the mayor's name and entitled 'Salute to Liberty.' Beneath the title, the sign stated: 'During this holiday season, the city of Pittsburgh salutes liberty. Let these festive lights remind us that we are the keepers of the flame of liberty and our legacy of freedom.' In 1982, the city expanded its holiday display to include a symbolic representation of Chanukah. It placed an 18-foot Chanukah menorah next to the city's 45-foot Christmas tree. The Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and seven local residents (P), filed suit against the county and the city, seeking permanently to enjoin the county from displaying the crche in the county courthouse and the city from displaying the menorah in front of the City-County Building. Ps claimed a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The District Court stated that 'the crche was but part of the holiday decoration of the stairwell and that the menorah was an insignificant part of another holiday display.' If found 'the displays had a secular purpose' and 'did not create an excessive entanglement of government with religion.' The Court of Appeals reversed. They determined that the crche and the menorah were understood as endorsing Christianity and Judaism. The court observed: 'Each display was located at or in a public building devoted to core functions of government.' The Court of Appeals did not consider whether either one had an impermissible purpose or resulted in an unconstitutional entanglement between government and religion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner