(CNSNews.com) - Can a city decide which permanent, unattended monuments, it must install on city property?
On Wednesday, without dissent, members of the U.S. Supreme Court said “Yes."
In a 9-0 ruling, the court unanimously rejected the argument of a little-known Salt Lake City-based religious sect called Summum that the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, should be forced to place a monument to the group’s “Seven Aphorisms” alongside a 50-year-old monument to the Ten Commandments already in a city park.
Speaking for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: “If governments must maintain viewpoint neutrality in selecting donated monuments, they must either prepare for cluttered parks or face pressure to remove longstanding and cherished monuments.
“Were public parks considered traditional public forums for the purpose of erecting privately donated monuments, most parks would have little choice but to refuse all such donations."
The decision represents “a resounding victory for government speech,” according to Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, who presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court on behalf of Pleasant Grove.
“It’s a landmark decision that clears the way for government to express its views and its history through the selection of monuments – including religious monuments and displays,” Sekulow said, adding that the unanimous decision was a surprise.
“I felt confident at the end of the day, after the oral arguments, but you never know. Having it unanimous is huge,” he told CNSNews.com.
Summum, according to its Web site, claims elements of Gnostic Christianity, esoteric philosophy and Egyptian practices, which it describes as: “Nectar and meditation, sexuality and mummification -- then throw in a pyramid for an eclectic, dynamic mix.”
That is, the group worships or gathers in a pyramidal temple, practices modern day mummification of pets, and utilizes wine-like “nectar” and “Sexual Ecstacy” experiences as part of its practices and beliefs.
It’s Seven Aphorisms – or principles – include “psychokinesis” -- the idea that the mind is everything, and includes the power to move things.
Summum did not respond to a request for an interview. But the group’s attorney, Brian Barnard, who had argued that the Constitution’s Free Speech provision required the inclusion of its monument, reportedly plans further legal action.
"In order to win the free speech claim, the city of Pleasant Grove told the United States Supreme Court the Ten Commandments have been officially adopted by the city of Pleasant Grove," Barnard told radio station KCPW in Salt Lake City. "That violates the Establishment Clause. That argument will be presented to the trial court."
Atheist groups, meanwhile, say they plan to use the Summum decision as fodder for their own legal challenges.
The American Humanist Association announced the decision gives atheists the ammunition they need to pursue the total removal of Ten Commandments monuments on public property all over America.
"The unanimous decision of the Court is clear," said Bob Ritter, legal coordinator for the Appignani Humanist Legal Center said in a statement.
"A permanent monument owned by a government entity and located in a public park is a form of government speech,” Ritter added. “Given this, such a monument isn't permitted to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And we humanists are ready to argue that Ten Commandments monuments in U.S. public parks are unconstitutional government endorsements of religion."
But Sekulow told CNSNews.com he believes that the decision “puts a bookend on the litigation surrounding the display of the Ten Commandments that’s been taking place for years across the country.”
Sekuklow said the courts have already upheld that historical monuments that involve religion don’t violate the constitutional ban even if they are on public land.
Justice Antonin Scalia, meawnhile, seemed to agree. Writing separately in a concurring opinion to the Summum decision, Scalia made it clear that the high court isn’t likely to entertain other arguments on the issue.
“The city ought not fear that today's victory has propelled it from the Free Speech Clause frying pan into the Establishment Clause fire,” Saclia wrote, adding that there are “very good reasons to be confident that the park displays do not violate any part of the First Amendment.”
The decision overturned a ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that Pleasant Grove violated the free speech rights of Summum.