449 U.S. 39 (1980)
In 1978, the Kentucky General Assembly enacted a statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom in the State.1 The copies were to be purchased with private contributions.2 The statute required that each posted copy include a notation in small print at the bottom.3 This notation explained the secular application of the Ten Commandments as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.4
Petitioners claimed that this statute violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.5 They sought an injunction against its enforcement in state court.6 The case proceeded through trial in the state trial court.7
The state trial court upheld the statute.8 It found that the avowed purpose of the statute was secular and not religious.9 The court determined that the statute would neither advance nor inhibit any religion or religious group.10 The court also concluded that the statute would not involve the State excessively in religious matters.11
The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky affirmed the trial court's judgment by an equally divided court.12 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the matter.13
Whether the Kentucky statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments on the walls of public school classrooms violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?14
Under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, a state statute must satisfy a three-part test to be permissible.15 First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose. Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.16 This test derives from Lemon v. Kurtzman.17 If a statute violates any of these three principles, it must be struck down under the Establishment Clause.18
Yes. Applying the Lemon test to the facts of this case, the Kentucky statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school rooms has no secular legislative purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.19 The statute mandates the posting of copies of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public classroom in the State, accompanied by a notation regarding its secular application as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.20 Although the state trial court found the avowed purpose of the statute to be secular, the pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature.21
The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers such as worshipping the Lord God alone.22 Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no educational function because the Ten Commandments are not integrated into the school curriculum in the manner of a study of history or comparative religion.23 The mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the official support of the State Government that the Establishment Clause prohibits.24 It does not matter that the posted copies are financed by voluntary private contributions.25
The statute therefore violates the first part of the Lemon test and contravenes the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.26 The Court reasoned that no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind it to the fact that the Ten Commandments are a sacred text.27 The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters such as honoring one's parents or prohibitions on killing, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness.28 Rather, they include religious duties.
This distinguishes the case from situations where religious texts are used in an appropriate study of history or ethics.29 The effect of posting would be to induce schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey the Commandments, which is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.30
The Kentucky statute violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.31
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Rehnquist dissented from the majority's decision.32 He argued that the Court should not reject the secular purpose articulated by the legislature and confirmed by the state trial court.33 The trial court found that the General Assembly thought the statute had a secular legislative purpose and specifically said so.34 Rehnquist noted that this Court regularly looks to legislative articulations of a statute's purpose in Establishment Clause cases.35 He stated that the Court accords such pronouncements the deference they are due.36 He cited examples from prior cases like Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist and Lemon v. Kurtzman.37
He maintained that the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World.38 The trial court concluded that evidence submitted substantiated this determination.39 According to Rehnquist, the Establishment Clause does not require that the public sector be insulated from all things which may have a religious significance or origin.40 Kentucky was permitted to conclude that a document with such secular significance should be placed before its students.41 He further observed that the history of man is inseparable from the history of religion.42 The majority's approach represented a cavalier summary reversal without benefit of oral argument or briefs on the merits.43