Term: 2008
Docket: 07-665
Pleasant Grove City, Utah Et Al. v. Summum
- Pro
07-665 PLEASANT GROVE CITY, UT, ET AL V. SUMMUM DECISION BELOW: 483 F3d 1044 CERT. GRANTED 3/31/2008 QUESTION PRESENTED: Petitioner Pleasant Grove City owns and displays a number of monuments, memorials, and other objects in a municipal park. Respondent Summum sued in federal court, contending that because the city had accepted monuments donated by local civic groups, the First Amendment compels the city to accept and display Summum’s “Seven Aphorisms” monument as well. The district court denied Summum’s request for a preliminary injunction, but a panel of the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the city must immediately erect and display Summum’s monument. The Tenth Circuit then denied the city’s petition for rehearing en banc by an equally divided, 6-6 vote. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Tenth Circuit err by holding, in conflict with the Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits, that a monument donated to a municipality and thereafter owned, controlled, and displayed by the municipality is not government speech but rather remains the private speech of the monument’s donor? 2. Did the Tenth Circuit err by ruling, in conflict with the Second, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, that a municipal park is a public forum under the First Amendment for the erection and permanent display of monuments proposed by private parties? 3. Did the Tenth Circuit err by ruling that the city must immediately erect and display Summum’s “Seven Aphorisms” monument in the city’s park? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-4057
In the 2008 case of Pleasant Grove City, Utah et al. v. Summum, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pleasant Grove City. The dispute began when Summum, a religious organization, requested to erect a monument displaying its Seven Aphorisms in Pioneer Park where other monuments were already present including one depicting Ten Commandments donated by Fraternal Order of Eagles. The city refused this request leading to Summum suing them for violating their First Amendment rights - freedom of speech and religion as they allowed private donations expressing certain views but not others on public property. However, the court held that permanent monuments displayed on public property represent government speech and thus are exempt from scrutiny under Free Speech Clause unlike traditional or designated public forums like parks during demonstrations or leafleting which must remain open for all speakers regardless whether government agrees with their message or not.
In the dissenting opinion for Pleasant Grove City, Utah et al. v. Summum (2008), Justice John Paul Stevens argued that a public park is a traditional public forum and therefore should be open to all forms of speech, including monuments donated by private groups. He disagreed with the majority's view that monuments in parks are government speech immune from First Amendment scrutiny. Instead, he contended that once the city accepted one privately donated monument, it could not discriminate against others based on their message or viewpoint without violating free speech principles. Furthermore, he suggested that if cities wish to avoid such dilemmas they can simply stop accepting privately funded donations altogether.
