Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court said public parks can house monuments, including those depicting the Ten Commandments, without having to make space for private groups to erect their own displays.

The justices today unanimously overturned a ruling that required Pleasant Grove, Utah, to give equal access to Summum, a church that wanted to display its “seven aphorisms” in a city park with a Ten Commandments monument.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said monuments typically represent “government speech” and don’t create the type of “public forum” that would require equal access for private groups under the Constitution’s free-speech clause.

“It is hard to imagine how a public park could be opened up for the installation of permanent monuments by every person or group wishing to engage in that form of expression,” Alito wrote.

Summum, a Salt Lake City-based church founded in 1975, argued that the city considered the display to be private speech. The church said the city hadn’t formally embraced the message conveyed by the monument, which was donated in 1971 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

The Ten Commandments depict the rules that Jews and Christians believe God handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. Summum says its aphorisms, which include “the principle of psychokinesis” and “the principle of correspondence,” came from an earlier set of tablets that Moses brought down from the mountain and then destroyed in anger.

Establishment Clause

Today’s ruling didn’t directly concern the constitutional ban on establishment of religion, which was at issue in 2005 when the court allowed Ten Commandments displays on public property as part of a broader presentation.

The establishment clause question nonetheless lurked near the surface. During arguments in November, Chief Justice John Roberts said a declaration that the Pleasant Grove monument was government speech would make it harder for the city to argue that it wasn’t favoring one religion over another. In his opinion for the court, Alito said government speech “must comport with the establishment clause.”

Two justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said in a separate opinion that Pleasant Grove was complying with the religion clause. Scalia pointed to the presence of 14 other displays in the park as well as the Eagles’ stated purpose of combating juvenile delinquency.

“The city can safely exhale,” Scalia wrote. “Its residents and visitors can now return to enjoying Pioneer Park’s wishing well, its historic granary -- and, yes, even its Ten Commandments monument -- without fear that they are complicit in an establishment of religion.”

Souter Concerns

Justice David Souter, the only justice who didn’t sign Alito’s opinion, voiced a cautionary note, saying the interaction between the two constitutional clauses “may not be easy to work out.” He said governments that have monuments with religious themes might accept a slew of other displays to avoid the appearance of endorsing that religion.

“As mementoes and testimonials pile up, however, the chatter may well make it less intuitively obvious that the government is speaking in its own right simply by maintaining the monuments,” Souter wrote.

Alito acknowledged that “there may be situations in which it is difficult to tell whether a government entity is speaking on its own behalf or is providing a forum for private speech.” He said, however, that monuments in public parks generally don’t present a close call.

“Public parks are often closely identified in the public mind with the government unit that owns the land,” he wrote.

Government Expression

Jay Sekulow, who represented Pleasant Grove at the high court, hailed the ruling, saying it “clears the way for government to express its views and its history through the selection of monuments, including religious monuments and displays.” Sekulow is chief counsel for the Washington-based American Center for Law and Justice.

Advocates of church-state separation had mixed reactions. Welton Gaddy, president of the New York-based Interfaith Alliance Foundation, said the ruling permits religious favoritism by governments.

“Our public parks are a sanctuary for people of all faiths and belief systems,” he said. “They should not be used to endorse any one religion.”

The Anti-Defamation League, in contrast, said the ruling “does not disturb the bedrock constitutional principle that government may not favor one religion over another.”

The case is Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 07-665.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 25, 2009 16:25 EST