(CBS/AP) A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses, saying they violate the doctrine of separation of church and state.
Sending dual signals in ruling on this issue for the first time in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.

In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
In that 5-4 ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a 6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol, the swing vote was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. The second ruling, likewise, was by a 5-4 margin.

"In both cases we filed briefs of support," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Monday. "We respect the court's decision. The Ten Commandments monument was on the grounds of the Texas state capitol and it is part of a larger display commemorating state history and culture. And the court agreed that it is consistent with the First Amendment."

CBS News Correspondent Barry Bagnato reports that the bottom line is that Ten Commandments displays are allowed if they are part of a general historical tribute to the nation's legal and religious heritage.

Justice Stephen Breyer's vote was the decisive one for both state cases, Bagnato reports. He voted in favor of the monument in Texas and against displays in Kentucky courthouses. The difference, Breyer said, is that the monument on the Texas state house grounds is a part of an overall display and was in a display that has been around for more than 40 years, so it is historical. He strongly suggests new displays won't be allowed because in "today's world," they are "likely to prove divisive in a way that this longstanding, pre-existing monument has not"

"These cases are less confusing than you might think," said CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen. "The Kentucky Commandments were banned because they had been placed there specifically for their religious content. The Texas display was permitted to stand because it included a secular purpose and was part of a larger display. Different results based upon different facts."

The court also released the following decisions:

Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled. The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued.

The court rejected appeals from two journalists who face jail for refusing to testify about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity. Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame. The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago — whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.

Cable companies may keep rival Internet providers from using their lines, a decision that will limit competition and consumers' choices. The 6-3 decision is a victory for the Bush administration, which sought exclusive control to promote broadband investment from deep-pocketed cable companies.

Police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters.

A lower court improperly gave a Tennessee death row inmate a second chance, infringing on the state's right to execute the man, according to the court.

CBS News reports that after the decisions were announced, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist adjourned the term with no hints that any justice is retiring from the court. He just thanked the court staff for all its work during the term.

Continued

 1  |   2  

©MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

E-Mail Story

Print Story

Sphere

Share

Text Size:  A  A  A

Back To Top