492 U.S. 573, 590 (1989)
In December 1986 Allegheny County permitted the Holy Name Society to place a creche on the Grand Staircase of the county courthouse.1 The display ran from November 26 through January 9.2
It consisted of the Nativity figures inside a wooden manger topped by an angel holding a banner that read "Gloria in Excelsis Deo!"3 The creche was framed by a wooden fence, red and white poinsettias, and two small evergreen trees.4 A plaque stated that the display was donated by the Holy Name Society.5
The county used the creche as the backdrop for its annual Christmas-carol program.6 High-school choirs performed during weekday lunch hours.7 At the same time the city of Pittsburgh erected a 45-foot Christmas tree under the middle arch of the Grant Street entrance to the City-County Building.8 On December 22 the city placed an 18-foot Chanukah menorah of tree-and-branch design next to the tree.9 The tree stood beneath a sign bearing the mayor's name and the words "Salute to Liberty."10
The menorah was owned by Chabad.11 City employees stored, erected, and removed it each year.12 The display remained until January 13.13 On December 10, 1986 the Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and seven local residents filed suit in federal district court.14 They sought a permanent injunction against both displays.15 Chabad was permitted to intervene as a defendant to defend the menorah.16
The district court denied the injunction on May 8, 1987.17 A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed.18 It held that each display had the impermissible effect of endorsing religion.19 Rehearing en banc was denied by a 6-to-5 vote.20 The county, the city, and Chabad each petitioned for certiorari.21 The Supreme Court granted all three petitions.22
Whether the creche display on the Grand Staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse violates the Establishment Clause?23
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits government from endorsing religion.24 A display of a religious symbol violates this command if, when viewed in its particular physical setting, it has the effect of conveying a message that the government favors or promotes the religious beliefs represented by the symbol.25
Yes. The creche display stands alone on the Grand Staircase without secular symbols to dilute its religious message.26 The Nativity figures are topped by an angel bearing the banner Gloria in Excelsis Deo.27 The display is framed by a wooden fence, red and white poinsettias, and two small evergreen trees.
It occupies the main and most public part of the seat of county government from November 26 through January 9.28 The county uses the creche as the backdrop for its annual Christmas-carol program performed by high-school choirs.29 This setting conveys an unmistakable message that the county supports and promotes the Christian praise to God that is the creche's religious message.30 The ownership plaque stating that the display was donated by the Holy Name Society does not alter the conclusion.31
The government is endorsing the religious message of that organization rather than communicating a message of its own.32
The creche display violates the Establishment Clause.33
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brennan And Justice Stevens As To Part Ii
Justice O'Connor agrees that the creche displayed alone on the Grand Staircase of the county courthouse conveys a message to nonadherents of Christianity that they are not full members of the political community.34 It also conveys a corresponding message to Christians that they are favored members.35 In contrast to the creche in Lynch, which was displayed in a private park as part of a broader display of traditional secular symbols, this creche stands alone in the county courthouse.36
The display of religious symbols in public areas of core government buildings runs a special risk of making religion relevant to status in the political community.37 The Court correctly concludes that placement of the central religious symbol of the Christmas holiday season at the Allegheny County Courthouse has the unconstitutional effect of conveying a government endorsement of Christianity.38
Justice Brennan concurs in the judgment that the creche display signals an endorsement of the Christian faith in violation of the Establishment Clause.39 He joins Parts III-A, IV, and V of the Court's opinion.40 He continues to believe that the display of an object that retains a specifically Christian religious meaning is incompatible with the separation of church and state demanded by the Constitution.41
He agrees with the Court that Allegheny County's display of a creche at the county courthouse signals an endorsement of the Christian faith.42 The creche bears a religious meaning because an angel in the display carries a banner declaring Glory to God in the highest.43 The floral decorations surrounding the creche highlight it rather than secularize it.44
Justice Stevens concurs in the judgment regarding the creche for substantially the same reasons discussed in Justice Brennan's opinion and Part IV of the majority opinion.45 He joins Justice Brennan's opinion as well as Part IV of Justice Blackmun's opinion and Part I of Justice O'Connor's opinion.46 He finds the county's unambiguous exposition of a sacred symbol inside its courthouse promoted Christianity to a degree that violated the Establishment Clause.47
He would conclude that Allegheny County's unambiguous exposition of a sacred symbol inside its courthouse promoted Christianity to a degree that violated the Establishment Clause.48 Accordingly, he concurs in the Court's judgment regarding the creche.49
Justice Kennedy dissents from the holding that the creche display violates the Establishment Clause.50 He would uphold the display under the Lemon test.51 He argues that the creche, even in this setting, poses no realistic risk of representing an effort to proselytize.52 He repudiates the endorsement inquiry in favor of a proselytization approach.53
The majority holds that the County of Allegheny violated the Establishment Clause by displaying a creche in the county courthouse because the principal or primary effect of the display is to advance religion within the meaning of Lemon v. Kurtzman.54 This view of the Establishment Clause reflects an unjustified hostility toward religion, a hostility inconsistent with our history and our precedents.55
Whether the menorah display next to a Christmas tree and sign outside the City-County Building violates the Establishment Clause?56
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits government from endorsing religion. A display of a religious symbol violates this command if, when viewed in its particular physical setting, it has the effect of conveying a message that the government favors or promotes the religious beliefs represented by the symbol.
No. The menorah display creates an overall holiday setting that represents both Christmas and Chanukah as part of the same winter-holiday season.57 An 18-foot Chanukah menorah of tree-and-branch design stands next to the city's 45-foot Christmas tree.58 The tree stood beneath a sign bearing the mayor's name and the words "Salute to Liberty" at the Grant Street entrance to the City-County Building from December 22 until January 13.59 The Christmas tree is the predominant element.60
It is widely viewed as a secular symbol of the Christmas holiday season.61 The menorah is readily understood in the shadow of the tree as simply a recognition that Christmas is not the only traditional way of observing the winter-holiday season.62 The mayor's sign further diminishes the possibility of endorsement by stressing the theme of liberty and linking the theme of light common to both holidays with the Nation's legacy of freedom.63
The menorah display does not violate the Establishment Clause.64
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brennan And Justice Stevens As To Part Ii
Justice O'Connor concludes that the city of Pittsburgh's combined holiday display of a Chanukah menorah, a Christmas tree, and a sign saluting liberty does not have the effect of conveying an endorsement of religion.65 She agrees that the Christmas tree is not regarded today as a religious symbol.66 The combined display conveys a message of pluralism and freedom of belief during the holiday season rather than an endorsement of Judaism or religion in general.67
In her view the central question under the Establishment Clause is whether the city's display of the menorah, the religious symbol of a religious holiday, next to a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty sends a message of government endorsement of Judaism or whether it sends a message of pluralism and freedom to choose one's own beliefs.68 She concludes that the city did not endorse Judaism or religion in general but rather conveyed a message of pluralism and freedom of belief during the holiday season.69
Justice Brennan dissents from the holding that the menorah display does not violate the Establishment Clause.70 He cannot agree that the city's display of a 45-foot Christmas tree and an 18-foot Chanukah menorah shows no favoritism towards Christianity, Judaism, or both.71 He would have thought that the answer as to the creche supplied the answer to the menorah.72
The decision as to the menorah rests on three premises. The Christmas tree is a secular symbol. Chanukah is a holiday with secular dimensions, symbolized by the menorah. The government may promote pluralism by sponsoring or condoning displays having strong religious associations on its property. None of these is sound.73 He continues to believe that the display of an object that retains a specifically religious meaning is incompatible with the separation of church and state demanded by the Constitution.74
Justice Stevens dissents from the holding that the menorah display is constitutional.75 He would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in its entirety.76 He concludes that the juxtaposition of the Christmas tree with the Chanukah menorah gives religious significance to the tree and manifests governmental approval of the Jewish and Christian religions.77
Standing alone in front of a governmental headquarters, a lighted 45-foot evergreen tree might convey holiday greetings linked too tenuously to Christianity to have constitutional moment.78 Juxtaposition of this tree with an 18-foot menorah does not make the latter secular.79 Rather, the presence of the Chanukah menorah, unquestionably a religious symbol, gives religious significance to the Christmas tree.80 The overall display thus manifests governmental approval of the Jewish and Christian religions.81
Justice Kennedy concurs in the result that the menorah display is permissible.82 He agrees that the display of a menorah by the city of Pittsburgh is constitutional for the same reasons that the creche display is constitutional.83 He applies the Lemon test and finds no realistic risk that the menorah represents an effort to proselytize.84
The creche display is constitutional, and for the same reasons the display of a menorah by the city of Pittsburgh is permissible as well.85 On this latter point he concurs in the result but not the reasoning of Part VI of Justice Blackmun's opinion.86 There is no suggestion here that the government's power to coerce has been used to further the interests of Christianity or Judaism in any way.87 There is no realistic risk that the creche and the menorah represent an effort to proselytize or are otherwise the first step down the road to an establishment of religion.88