About: Van Orden v. Perry   Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

In a suit brought by Thomas Van Orden of Austin, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in November 2003 that the displays were constitutional, on the grounds that the monument conveyed both a religious and secular message. Van Orden appealed, and in October 2004 the high court agreed to hear the case at the same time as it heard McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, a similar case challenging a display of the Ten Commandments at two county court houses in Kentucky.

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Van Orden v. Perry
rdfs:comment
  • In a suit brought by Thomas Van Orden of Austin, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in November 2003 that the displays were constitutional, on the grounds that the monument conveyed both a religious and secular message. Van Orden appealed, and in October 2004 the high court agreed to hear the case at the same time as it heard McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, a similar case challenging a display of the Ten Commandments at two county court houses in Kentucky.
sameAs
dcterms:subject
dbkwik:religion/pr...iPageUsesTemplate
USVol
  • 545(xsd:integer)
Concurrence
  • Thomas
  • Breyer
  • Scalia
Dissent
  • Stevens
  • O'Connor
  • Souter
LawsApplied
Plurality
  • Rehnquist
DecideYear
  • 2005(xsd:integer)
ArgueDate
  • --03-02
Litigants
  • Van Orden v. Perry
Prior
  • 25920.0
ArgueYear
  • 2005(xsd:integer)
JoinPlurality
  • Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
SCOTUS
  • 1994(xsd:integer)
Holding
  • A Ten Commandments monument erected on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause, because the monument, when considered in context, conveyed a historic and social meaning rather than an intrusive religious endorsement.
JoinDissent
  • Ginsburg
  • Stevens, Ginsburg
Fullname
  • Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor of Texas and Chairman, State Preservation Board, et al.
CitationNew
  • 172800.0
DecideDate
  • --06-27
USPage
  • 677(xsd:integer)
Docket
  • 3(xsd:integer)
abstract
  • In a suit brought by Thomas Van Orden of Austin, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in November 2003 that the displays were constitutional, on the grounds that the monument conveyed both a religious and secular message. Van Orden appealed, and in October 2004 the high court agreed to hear the case at the same time as it heard McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, a similar case challenging a display of the Ten Commandments at two county court houses in Kentucky. The appeal of the 5th Circuit's decision was argued by Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar and the Alston & Bird Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law, who represented Van Orden on a pro bono basis. Texas' case was argued by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, by a vote of 5 to 4, that the display was constitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the plurality opinion of the Court; Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment but wrote separately. The similar case of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky was handed down the same day with the opposite verdict (also with a 5 to 4 decision). The "swing vote" between these two cases was Justice Stephen Breyer.
Alternative Linked Data Views: ODE     Raw Data in: CXML | CSV | RDF ( N-Triples N3/Turtle JSON XML ) | OData ( Atom JSON ) | Microdata ( JSON HTML) | JSON-LD    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software