When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling June 27 on the thorny issue of exhibiting the Ten Commandments in government places, the justices came to a fork in the road — and took it.

Split decisions on cases in Texas and Kentucky seem to have saved the Ten Commandments monument in Wesley Bolin Plaza for now, but an attorney with a conservative policy organization in Arizona expects more litigation on religious-related issues.

On a 5-4 split, the High Court ruled that the six-foot granite monument on the capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, is constitutional. But in the case of Ten Commandments exhibits in two Kentucky courthouses, the Supreme Court, also by a 5-4 decision, ruled that the Kentucky displays went too far and are unconstitutional.

Peter Gentala, legal counsel for the Center for Arizona Policy, said the court ruled the way it was widely expected. The circumstances surrounding the monument in Texas closely parallel the situation in Arizona, he said.

“The facts are so close that is extremely unlikely that the Arizona monument will be jeopardized,” Mr. Gentala said. “Our monument would be held constitutional if someone ever decides to challenge it, which is doubtful.

“But looking at the big picture, there is more confusion, which will lead to more litigation.”

The court went both ways, he said. In the Kentucky case, the High Court considered the motivation of the government entity in erecting a Ten Commandments display. He said the motivation issue stems from the so-called “Lemon test,” a case in the 1950s that involved religion in public schools.

“The majority opinion in the Texas case, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, said the Lemon test should not apply to passive religious displays,” Mr. Gentala said. “You can look at it and pass it by and there is no invasion of your senses.”

Having such a display indoors “is not a constitutional consequence,” Mr. Gentala said. What the court found in the Kentucky case was that the Legislature had a specific religious purpose.

“The court latched onto a resolution by state Legislature with strong religious language,” he said. “In the Texas case, the chief justice focused more on the cultural significance of the Ten Commandments.”

Religious displays are not uncommon in and around government buildings, especially in Washington D.C. In fact, the courtroom in which the justices heard a Ten Commandments case in March has a wall carving of Moses holding the religious tablets.

Commenting on the Supreme Court rulings, Governor Napolitano said, “I’m as confused as everyone else about where the court is going…”

Senator Says She’s Relieved

Sen. Linda Gray, R-10, a staunch supporter of Arizona’s Ten Commandments monument, said she is relieved that the monument will continue to stand in the Capitol mall between the Arizona Supreme Court Building and the Capitol.

“My question is, what about the Ten Commandments engraving in the U.S. Supreme Court?” she said. “Do they have to go in with jackhammers and remove it?”

She expressed disappointment with the Kentucky ruling. “It’s a wrong decision to ban from the courthouse the Ten Commandments, upon which all of our laws depend,” Ms. Gray said.

ACLU: Historical Context Must Be Considered

Seth Apfel, vice president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said his organization would do its due diligence before deciding on a course of action.

“At first glance there are a lot of parallels with the Texas case,” Mr. Apfel said.

He agreed with Mr. Gentala that the issue was not whether the display was outdoors or inside a government building.

“It depends on whether it is displayed on its own or in some other historical context,” Mr. Apfel said. “In Kentucky, it was on its own a very religious context. It’s very similar to a Nativity scene. By itself, it is unconstitutional, but with other religious displays it has been ruled constitutional.

“I hope the justices don’t make a decision based on the exterior appearance of their building. The decision should be based on the law.”

Mr. Gentala said the First Amendment does not ban religious displays. “No one is being forced, compelled to look at these displays,” he said. “The finding, I would think, is that they are constitutional.”

Because the dual decisions still leave questions, Mr. Gentala said, “From here on the result will be more litigation, but maybe not here in Arizona. The public outcry is for clearer, common sense decisions, rulings that don’t result in absurdities, like taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, it’s almost coin flipping.” —

Reporter Phil Riske contributed to this story.