American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. Schundler |
---|
|
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |
---|
Full case name | 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 |
---|
Argued | August 6, 1998 |
---|
Decided | February 16, 1999 |
---|
Citation | 168 F.3d 92 |
---|
|
Prior history | Injunction granted, 931 F. Supp. 1180 (D.N.J. 1995); affirmed, 104 F.3d 1435 (1997). |
---|
Subsequent history | Cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1265 (June 9, 1997) |
---|
|
Judges sitting | Richard Lowell Nygaard, Samuel Alito, Marjorie O. Rendell |
---|
|
Majority | Alito, joined by Rendell |
---|
Dissent | Nygaard |
---|
|
U.S. Const. amend. I |
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.
Background
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.
Decision
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]
References
- ^ 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
|
---|
|
---|
Public displays and ceremonies | |
---|
Statutory religious exemptions | |
---|
Public funding | |
---|
Religion in public schools | |
---|
Private religious speech | |
---|
Internal church affairs | |
---|
Taxpayer standing | |
---|
Blue laws | |
---|
Other | |
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
Unprotected speech | Incitement and sedition | |
---|
Defamation and false speech | |
---|
Fighting words and the heckler's veto | |
---|
True threats | |
---|
Obscenity |
- Rosen v. United States (1896)
- United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
- Roth v. United States (1957)
- One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
- Smith v. California (1959)
- Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)
- MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)
- Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
- Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)
- Ginzburg v. United States (1966)
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
- Redrup v. New York (1967)
- Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
- Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
- United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)
- Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)
- Miller v. California (1973)
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
- United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)
- Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
- Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975)
- Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)
- Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)
- Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. (1980)
- American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985)
- People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)
- Reno v. ACLU (1997)
- United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)
- City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002)
- United States v. American Library Ass'n (2003)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004)
- Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
- United States v. Williams (2008)
- American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Stevens (2010)
- Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)
- Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025)
|
---|
Speech integral to criminal conduct | |
---|
|
---|
Strict scrutiny | |
---|
Overbreadth Vagueness | |
---|
Symbolic speech versus conduct | |
---|
Content-based restrictions | |
---|
Content-neutral restrictions |
|
---|
Compelled speech | |
---|
Compelled subsidy of others' speech |
|
---|
Government grants and subsidies | |
---|
Government as speaker | |
---|
Loyalty oaths | |
---|
School speech | |
---|
Public employees | |
---|
Hatch Act and similar laws | |
---|
Licensing and restriction of speech | |
---|
Commercial speech |
- Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
- Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)
- Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations (1973)
- Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
- Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
- Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
- Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
- Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)
- Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
- In re Primus (1978)
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)
- Friedman v. Rogers (1979)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980)
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
- In re R.M.J. (1982)
- Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
- Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California (1986)
- Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)
- Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind (1988)
- State University of New York v. Fox (1989)
- Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)
- Edenfield v. Fane (1993)
- United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)
- Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)
- Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)
- Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)
- Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)
- 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
- Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)
- Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States (1999)
- Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)
- United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
- Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
- Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)
- Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n (2005)
- Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
- Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2010)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
- Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
- Matal v. Tam (2017)
- Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
- Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
- Vidal v. Elster (2024)
|
---|
Campaign finance and political speech | |
---|
Anonymous speech | |
---|
State action | |
---|
Official retaliation | |
---|
Boycotts | |
---|
Prisons | |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
Organizations | |
---|
Future Conduct | |
---|
Solicitation | |
---|
Membership restriction | |
---|
Primaries and elections | |
---|
|
|
|