Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Van Orden v. Perry (2005)

Read a random definition: somnolentia

A quick definition of Van Orden v. Perry (2005):

Van Orden v. Perry was a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was about whether it was okay for the state of Texas to have a monument with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capital. The court decided that it was okay because the First Amendment doesn't always mean that the government can't show a preference for religion over not having a religion. The court also said that having religious content or promoting a message that is consistent with a religious belief is not against the First Amendment.

A more thorough explanation:

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capital. The case addressed whether this display violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the display of the monument did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that not all governmental preference for religion over irreligion is prohibited by the Establishment Clause. Additionally, the Court found that having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not necessarily violate the Establishment Clause.

For example, a public school may teach about the history of various religions without violating the Establishment Clause. However, a public school may not promote one religion over another or require students to participate in religious activities.

In the case of Van Orden v. Perry, the Court found that the display of the Ten Commandments monument did not promote one religion over another or require anyone to participate in religious activities. Therefore, the display did not violate the Establishment Clause.

Valuable papers | Vance v. Terrazas

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:06
it means you will not be rejected today and may be accepted or WL in the future
Just got my Michigan rejection
BookwormBroker
16:10
same
RoaldDahl
16:10
@HopefullyInLawSchool: what if i already got rejected. does it mean anything
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:12
@RoaldDahl: Likely not however it could mean nothing
RoaldDahl
16:15
So if it means nothing does that mean something?
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.