Private Stone, Government Ground: City of Bloomfield v. Felix

In 2007, the city council of Bloomfield, New Mexico wrote out a plan that allowed private citizens to fund certain monuments to be displayed on the City Hall lawn. Kevin Mauzy, a local Bloomfield Councilor, outlined the plan and the Bloomfield council unanimously accepted it. Such monuments included the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the Bill of Rights, and, more controversially, the Ten Commandments. Each monument would have the donors' names on it along with a short description of its significance in American history. This changed five years later, when in 2012, two Bloomfield citizens took offense to the display because of their Wiccan beliefs and sued the city over it. Their argument was that, in displaying the Ten Commandments monument, the Bloomfield government violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

    The main question at hand is this: Was the privately-funded display of the Ten Commandments monument on government grounds a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

    The federal district court that took the case eventually ruled against the city, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreeing that the Ten Commandments monument should be taken down. The case was appealed once more, however the Supreme Court declined to look at it, leaving the case at a loss for Bloomfield.

    I believe that if the Supreme Court had looked at this case, there would be many precedences in order to make a constitutionally sound decision. This is not the first time the Ten Commandments had caused controversy, as seen by the cases of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry, both decided in the early 2000s. McCreary centered itself on three Kentucky counties in which public schools and courthouses displayed framed copies of the Ten Commandments. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that these copies were unconstitutional because of the intent of these displays, which were to advance religion. This is contrasted in part by Van Orden v. Perry. Van Orden was about a citizen suing a Texas government which had erected a monument of the Ten Commandments on government grounds. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the statue was constitutional because the Commandments were meant to convey a historical meaning rather than a religious one. Therefore, the intent of the religious symbol matters. If the intent in displaying it is to advance religion, then it is unconstitutional. 

    Ergo, Van Orden confirmed that the government may put up potentially religious monuments of historical importance on government property. What about Bloomfield? Through private donations, is this monument constitutionally viable to exist on government ground? To answer this question, I refer back to precedence. The case County of Alleghenty v. ACLU, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter concerned itself with two publicly-funded displays, one Jewish and one Christian. The justices ruled that the Christian display was unconstitutional on government grounds because of the words "Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ," on it. Meanwhile, the Jewish display was ruled constitutional because it did not encourage any form of worship. Rather, it was a passive symbol. This case is important because the ruling establishes that forms of religion are allowed on government ground, but only as passive objects. Although the difference in funding is clear, the main role of the monument itself is not.

    With these rulings adjacent to the issue, I believe there is enough to functionally figure out the issue itself. The questions I want to pose are this: while the government's intent is to beautify the city, is the Ten Commandments monument a passive or active object of religion?

    My answer to this question is that if the Supreme Court chose to review this case, they would rule that the intent of this is historical importance, and that this is a passive object of religion, and thus the monument would be allowed to stay up. The Establishment Clause is not being violated because, in this case, the Ten Commandments are being used in a historical context. However, rest of you may reach a different conclusion on this matter. I say this answer because of the inscriptions on the pieces, which reflect the donors' names along with a short paragraph of its significance in American history. If a reasonable onlooker saw this monument among the other well-known documents of the United States, and read the small inscription that told of the historical significance it had, then it would be a natural conclusion for the onlooker to make that these Commandments are there for a historical reason, not a religious one.