On November 27, 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Grayson County, Kentucky in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The ACLU, along with private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, ...
read more >
On November 27, 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Grayson County, Kentucky in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The ACLU, along with private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the Defendant's display of the Ten Commandments in the Grayson County Courthouse ("Courthouse") was unconstitutional. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claimed that this display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
On May 15, 2002, the Court granted a preliminary injunction and suspended the case until a similar case, McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was ruled on by the appeals court. On March 28, 2008, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and permanently enjoined the Defendant from displaying the Ten Commandments in the Courthouse. Additionally, the Plaintiffs were awarded $44,208 for legal fees and an additional $3,252.07 for costs associated with the litigation. The Court granted Defendants' motion to delay payment of these costs until the conclusion of the ensuing appeal.
On January 14, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case to the District Court for entry of judgment in favor of the Defendant. The Court reasoned that because the Ten Commandments were displayed along with other historically significant documents (specifically, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, The Star Spangled Banner, the National Motto, the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and a picture of Lady Justice) the document was being represented as a part of legal history, and not as an observance of religion.
On June 3, 2010, the District Court entered judgment for the Defendant and dismissed the case with prejudice.Joshua Arocho - 06/13/2012