Principle of Neutrality

The University of Virginia, an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Virginia, maintains a Student Activities Fund financed by a mandatory $14 per semester fee assessed to each full-time student. The fund supports extracurricular student activities related to the University's educational purpose through payments to third-party contractors for approved groups that qualify as Contracted Independent Organizations. To obtain CIO status, a student group must be composed primarily of University students, file its constitution, pledge nondiscrimination, and agree to a disclaimer stating that it is independent of the University. CIO publications are eligible for printing-cost reimbursement if their content is related to the University's educational purpose, but the Guidelines expressly exclude funding for any activity that primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality. In 1990, University of Virginia undergraduates formed Wide Awake Productions as a CIO and began publishing Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia. The first issue contained articles on racism, crisis pregnancy, prayer, C. S. Lewis, and reviews of religious music, each marked by a cross; subsequent issues addressed homosexuality, missionary work, eating disorders, and Christian theology, with advertisements from churches and Christian bookstores. In 1991, Wide Awake Productions requested $5,862 from the Student Activities Fund to cover printing costs for one issue. The Appropriations Committee of the Student Council denied the request on the ground that the publication constituted a religious activity under the Guidelines. Wide Awake Productions appealed the denial through the Student Council and the Student Activities Committee, which upheld the decision. The group and three of its student editors and members then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the refusal to pay printing costs violated their rights under the First Amendment Speech, Press, and Free Exercise Clauses and the Equal Protection Clause. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled for the University. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In 1959 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted a statute requiring that at least ten verses from the Holy Bible be read without comment at the opening of each public school on each school day. The statute included a provision allowing any child to be excused upon the written request of a parent or guardian. The Schempp family, Unitarian parents residing in Abington Township whose children attended Abington Senior High School, filed suit in federal district court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The exercises at the school involved selected students reading ten verses over the intercom system between 8:15 and 8:30 a.m., followed by recitation of the Lord's Prayer in unison by students in classrooms. The exercises were conducted daily under teacher supervision with no prefatory statements or comments. A three-judge district court held the statute unconstitutional after hearing testimony from the Schempps and expert witnesses regarding the religious character of the exercises and potential psychological effects on children. In 1905 the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City adopted a rule pursuant to Art. 77, § 202 of the Annotated Code of Maryland requiring opening exercises consisting of reading a chapter from the Holy Bible and/or recitation of the Lord's Prayer. Madalyn Murray and her son William, professed atheists living in Baltimore, filed suit in state court to compel rescission of the rule after unsuccessful attempts to have it rescinded. The Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the rule. The two cases were consolidated for argument before the Supreme Court because of the similarity of the issues presented. In both cases the Bible readings were conducted without comment using versions such as the King James, Douay, or Revised Standard. Students could select passages or be excused upon parental request, though the Schempps chose not to seek excusal for their children due to concerns about social stigma. Expert testimony was introduced concerning differences between Jewish and Christian scriptures and the potential for harm or divisiveness from reading certain passages without explanation. The district court in Schempp made findings that the exercises possessed a devotional and religious character and that the statute preferred the Christian religion. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in both cases following appeals from the respective lower court decisions.

In 1918, residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, formed a committee to erect a memorial for the county’s soldiers who fell in World War I. The committee chose a Latin cross design for the memorial, which was to stand at the terminus of the National Defense Highway connecting Washington to Annapolis. When the committee ran out of funds, the local American Legion post took over the project and completed the 32-foot concrete cross in 1925. The finished memorial displayed the American Legion emblem at its center and rested on a large pedestal bearing a bronze plaque that listed the names of 49 local soldiers who died in the war, along with the words Valor, Endurance, Courage, and Devotion. At the dedication ceremony, a Catholic priest offered an invocation and a Baptist pastor delivered a benediction. Since its dedication, the Bladensburg Cross has served as the site of patriotic events honoring veterans on Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and Independence Day. Over the following decades, additional monuments honoring veterans of later wars were added in the surrounding area, which became known as Veterans Memorial Park. As the area around the cross developed, the monument came to stand at the center of a busy intersection. In 1961, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission acquired the cross and the land on which it sits to preserve the monument and address traffic-safety concerns, and the Commission has since spent public funds to maintain the memorial. In 2014, the American Humanist Association and several individual plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Commission. The plaintiffs alleged that the cross’s presence on public land and the Commission’s maintenance of the memorial violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The American Legion intervened to defend the cross. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Commission and the American Legion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, heard argument on February 27, 2019, and issued its decision on June 20, 2019.

The Texas State Capitol grounds encompass 22 acres containing 17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating the people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity. Among these stands a 6-foot-high and 3½-foot-wide granite monolith inscribed with the text of the Ten Commandments. The monument is positioned north of the Capitol building, between the Capitol and the Supreme Court building. Carved above the text are an eagle grasping the American flag, an eye inside a pyramid, and two small tablets with ancient script. Below the text appear two Stars of David and the superimposed Greek letters Chi and Rho. The base bears the inscription presented to the people and youth of Texas by the Fraternal Order of Eagles of Texas 1961. The monument was donated to the State by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a national social, civic, and patriotic organization. After acceptance, the State selected the site based on the recommendation of the state organization responsible for maintaining the Capitol grounds. The Eagles paid the cost of erecting the monument, and its dedication was presided over by two state legislators. The legislative record of the acceptance is limited to journal entries. Thomas Van Orden, a native Texan and Austin resident who graduated from Southern Methodist Law School and was once a licensed lawyer, has encountered the monument during his frequent visits to the Capitol grounds since 1995. These visits are typically to use the law library in the Supreme Court building located northwest of the Capitol. Forty years after the monument's erection and six years after Van Orden began encountering it frequently, he filed suit against state officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983. He sought a declaration that the monument's placement violates the Establishment Clause and an injunction requiring its removal. Following a bench trial, the District Court ruled against him. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed those holdings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.