(202) 466-3234 1310 L Street NW

(202) 466-3353 (fax) Suite 200

www.au.org Washington, DC 20005

January 9, 2017

By U.S. Mail & Email

Samuel L. Neal, Jr., County Judge
Nueces County
901 Leopard Street, Room 303
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
nueces.countyjudge@nuecesco.com

Re: Ten Commandments monument at county courthouse

Dear Judge Neal:

We have received a complaint regarding the Ten Commandments monument on

the lawn of the Nueces County Courthouse. The display of this monument violates
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Please
remove it.

The U.S. Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts have uniformly held
that the Establishment Clause is violated when the Ten Commandments are
displayed on public land in isolation, with greater prominence than other
surrounding items, or in any other fashion that fails to convey a predominantly
secular message. See, e.g., McCreary Cty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 86074
(2005) (striking down series of displays in courthouse where initial display consisted
of Commandments alone and where follow-up displays emphasized religious content
or had religious purpose); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 4143 (1980) (invalidating
solitary display of Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms); ACLU of Ohio
Found., Inc. v. DeWeese, 633 F.3d 424, 435 (6th Cir. 2011) (display of Ten
Commandments next to list of seven secular Humanist precepts, along with
editorial comments casting aspersions on latter, endorsed religion); Green v. Haskell
Cty. Bd. of Commrs, 568 F.3d 784, 80009 (10th Cir. 2009) (invalidating monument
where Commandments were not part of larger secular display, concluding that
reasonable observer would discern religious purpose behind governments actions in
erecting and fighting to retain Commandments); ACLU of Ohio Found., Inc. v.
Ashbrook, 375 F.3d 484, 49094 (6th Cir. 2004) (striking down display based on
lack of any analytical connection between the Ten Commandments and other
items in courtroom, notwithstanding that Commandments were displayed opposite,
and in format matching, display of Bill of Rights); Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d
1282, 129697 (11th Cir. 2003) (striking down courthouse monument emphasizing


Ten Commandments); Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471, 48687 (6th Cir. 2002)
(invalidating display of monument inscribed with Ten Commandments and various
other symbols because Commandments occupy the bulk of the surface area and
accordingly plainly dominate the monument, and monument itself physically
dominates . . . the Capitol garden area); Ind. Civil Liberties Union v. OBannon,
259 F.3d 766, 77173 (7th Cir. 2001) (striking down Ten Commandments
monument because [n]othing in the context of the monument itself or the
surrounding grounds mitigate[d] the religious message conveyed, despite
engravings of Bill of Rights and Indiana Constitutions Preamble on adjacent sides
of monument); Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292, 30607 (7th Cir. 2000)
(striking down solitary Ten Commandments monument on grounds of City Hall
because, among other things, it was not incorporated into comprehensive display
sending secular cultural or historical message).

To be sure, courts have upheld displays of the Ten Commandments when the
Commandments were fully integrated into a larger nonreligious display that
communicated an overall secular message. See, e.g., Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S.
677, 68182, 69192 (2005) (plurality opinion) (upholding Ten Commandments
monument displayed in museum-like setting containing seventeen other historical
monuments and twenty-one markers); id. at 70102 (controlling concurring opinion
of Breyer, J.) (focusing on predominantly secular context of seventeen monuments
and twenty-one markers in conjunction with long-standing nature of display); Card
v. City of Everett, 520 F.3d 1009, 101921 (9th Cir. 2008) (upholding Ten
Commandments display that was accompanied by several historical monuments
where nothing suggested religious motive); ACLU of Ky. v. Mercer Cty., 432 F.3d
624, 632, 63940 (6th Cir. 2005) (upholding thematically unified, secular display
containing Ten Commandments and eight other well-known documents). Here the
Commandments stand alone and not as part of any larger display.

Please remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse grounds. We would
appreciate a response to this letter within thirty days that advises us how you plan
to proceed. If you have any questions, you may contact Ian Smith at (202) 466-3234
or ismith@au.org.

Sincerely,

Richard B. Katskee, Legal Director

Ian Smith, Staff Attorney