Netencyclo, The wikipedia mirror - The biggest multilingual encyclopedia : Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum -

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum :

Outils :

Vous avez un site web ? Un blog ?

 Netencyclo Directory Project 




Mettre en favoris !

Add to Netvibes
Technorati reactions
rencontre

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
 This article documents a current court case.
Information may change as the case progresses.
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 12, 2008
Full case name
Pleasant Grove City, Utah, et al. v. Summum
Docket nos. 07-665
Questions presented
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 holding, in conflict with the Second, Third, 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?
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
This box: view • talk

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum is an ongoing legal case heard by the United States Supreme Court on 12 November 2008. The court will consider whether the municipality of Pleasant Grove, Utah, which allows a privately donated Ten Commandments monument to be displayed on public property, must also let the Summum church put up its own statue of similar size.[1] Some court-watchers, including the New York Times editorial board, believe the Court should rule that the United States Constitution does not allow government to favor one religion over another.[2] Arguing for the petitioner was Jay Alan Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), and for the Summum, attorney Pamela Harris of the firm O’Melveny & Myers. The ACLJ was expected to argue that there should be a distinction between government speech and private speech and though the government should have the right to display the 10 Commandments, it should not have to endorse all private speech. [3]

[edit] Precedent

[edit] References

  1. ^ Liptak, Adam (November 10, 2008), "From Tiny Sect, Weighty Issue for Justices", New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/washington/11sect.html, retrieved on 11 November 2008, "In 2003, the president of the Summum church wrote to the mayor here with a proposal: the church wanted to erect a monument inscribed with the Seven Aphorisms in the city park, “similar in size and nature” to the one devoted to the Ten Commandments. The city declined, a lawsuit followed and a federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment required the city to display the Summum monument. The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments in the case, which could produce the most important free speech decision of the term." 
  2. ^ "The Supreme Court’s New Term", New York Times, 2008-10-06, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/opinion/06mon1.html 
  3. ^ "In the Courts", ACLJ, 2008-11-09, http://www.aclj.org/Cases/default.aspx?Section=120 

[edit] Further reading

rencontre

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum - En savoir plus

Rencontre Pleasant Grove City v. Summum - Articles à  la une


"Je rencontre quelques peines, je rencontre beaucoup de joie, c'est parfois une question de chance, souvent une rencontre de choix."
© 2009 Netencyclo - Netencyclo Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Program Policies
Netencyclo, the Wikipedia mirror : the biggest multilingual free-content encyclopedia on the Internet. Cet article, miroir de l'article de Wikipédia est conforme aux termes de la GFDL All Wikipedia content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (see details). Content on this web site is provided for informational purposes only. We accept no responsibility for any loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person resulting from information published on this site. We encourage you to verify any critical information with the relevant authorities.