Mt. Soledad in the Supreme Court’s Crosshairs: Why Legislative Recognition Should be Considered in Public Displays of Religion
Mt. Soledad in the Supreme Court’s Crosshairs: Why Legislative Recognition Should be Considered in Public Displays of Religion
Adrian R. Contreras, 40 McGeorge L. Rev. 973 (2009)
(An excerpt is below. To view the full text, please use Westlaw, Lexis, a law library or alternative source.)
This Comment addresses whether the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial satisfies the Establishment Clause in light of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case Van Orden v. Perry. In the Van Orden case, a divided Court upheld the placement of a monolith of the Ten Commandments at the Texas State Capitol. In the plurality opinion, four Justices concluded that the monolith was “passive,” focusing on the monolith’s nature and American history in finding no Establishment Clause violation. In his concurring opinion, Justice Breyer emphasized the physical nature of the monolith, its nonreligious purpose, and its forty-year presence at the site. Proponents of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial contend that Van Orden supports the view that certain religious displays are constitutional.