Anderson v. Salt Lake City Corp. involved an Establishment Clause challenge to a granite monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments installed on the grounds of a Salt Lake City courthouse. Applying the test developed by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that the display did not violate the Establishment Clause. Under Lemon, government activity violates the Establishment Clause if its purpose or primary effect is to advance religion. In this case, the court found that the display did neither. First, the court noted that the Commandments do not have a purely sectarian significance; the Commandments represent an important historical source on which modern Western legal codes are based. Second, the court observed that the organization that donated the display was not a religious group, but one that advocated the recognition of ecclesiastical law as the foundation on which secular law is based. Thus, the purpose was not to highlight the religious aspect of the commandments. Finally, because of the passive nature of the monument, it did not have the effect of advancing religion. While the display is visible on the courthouse grounds, no one is compelled to read the inscription. The court concluded the monument was nothing more than a depiction of a historically important document.
Opens in a new window