American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1999),[1] 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.
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Schundler
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
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.[2] The scene included Mary, Joseph, Baby Jesus and the Three Wisemen.[2] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the city to stop putting religious symbols on public property.[2] 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."[2] The ACLU filed a lawsuit saying that this display was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[3] The Federal District Court of New Jersey ordered the city to stop erecting its holiday display.[4][3] The City decided to appeal this ruling.[3] 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.[3] The ACLU filed for contempt.[3] 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.
Decisionedit
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.[5] 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."[5] The Court also relied on two prior Supreme Court cases Lynch v. Donnelly and County of Allegheny v. ACLU.[6] 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."[7] "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."[8] The Court decided that the modified display did not violate the First Amendment.[9]
Referencesedit
^American Civil Liberties Union v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1999).
Text of American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1999) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawJustiaOpenJuristGoogle Scholar
. About.com. Archived from the original on March 3, 2016.
January 01, 1970
american, civil, liberties, union, schundler, american, civil, liberties, union, jersey, schundler, 1999, united, states, federal, case, establishing, standards, government, sponsored, holiday, display, contain, religious, symbols, decided, court, appeals, thi. American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v Schundler 168 F 3d 92 3rd Cir 1999 1 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 American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v SchundlerCourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitFull case nameThe 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 JerseyArguedAugust 6 1998DecidedFebruary 16 1999Citation s 168 F 3d 92Case historyPrior 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 membershipJudge s sittingRichard Lowell Nygaard Samuel Alito Marjorie O RendellCase opinionsMajorityAlito joined by RendellDissentNygaardLaws appliedU S Const amend I Contents 1 Background 2 Decision 3 References 4 External linksBackground editDuring 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 2 The scene included Mary Joseph Baby Jesus and the Three Wisemen 2 The American Civil Liberties Union ACLU asked the city to stop putting religious symbols on public property 2 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 2 The ACLU filed a lawsuit saying that this display was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment 3 The Federal District Court of New Jersey ordered the city to stop erecting its holiday display 4 3 The City decided to appeal this ruling 3 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 3 The ACLU filed for contempt 3 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 editThe 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 5 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 5 The Court also relied on two prior Supreme Court cases Lynch v Donnelly and County of Allegheny v ACLU 6 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 7 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 8 The Court decided that the modified display did not violate the First Amendment 9 References edit American Civil Liberties Union v Schundler 168 F 3d 92 3rd Cir 1999 a b c d Schundler 168 F 3d at 95 a b c d e Schundler 168 F 3d at 96 American Civil Liberties Union v Schundler 931 F Supp 1180 D N J 1995 a b Schundler 168 F 3d at 97 citing Lemon v Kurtzman 403 U S 602 612 1971 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 Schundler 168 F 3d at 108 Schundler 168 F 3d at 107 quoting Allegheny County 492 U S at 633 Schundler 168 F 3d at 107 External links edit nbsp Works related to ACLU v Schundler at Wikisource Text of American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v Schundler 168 F 3d 92 3rd Cir 1999 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Justia OpenJurist Google Scholar Court Decision ACLU v Schundler About com Archived from the original on March 3 2016 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title American Civil Liberties Union v Schundler amp oldid 1175138367, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
