The Ten Commandments behind the Capitol building may be taken down with Chief United States District Judge Kristine Baker ordering the removal of the religious symbol March 31.
Due to the First Amendment’s establishment clause, the monument was deemed unconstitutional.
According to the Arkansas State Legislature’s website from 2015, the Ten Commandments Display Act was originally brought into law that same year.
The senate bill claimed “The Ten Commandments, found in The Bible at Exodus 20:1-17 26 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, are an important component of the moral foundation of 27 the laws and legal system of the United States of America and of the State of 28 Arkansas;” therefore, the majority of the State Congress thought it was important to build a monument honoring the religious guidelines on capitol grounds.
This would start the long process of keeping the monument on Capitol grounds.
According to the 148-page court order, the original monument was built in 2017 but was destroyed. In response, a new monument was built in 2018.
It currently sits behind the Capitol Building next to the senate chamber and old State Supreme court room.
Due to an act requiring that it be paid for by a third party outside of the government, it was paid for by the American History and Heritage Foundation.
On May 23, 2018, Donna Cave and Pat Piazza “the Cave plaintiffs” filed a lawsuit saying that this was a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause which the National Archives says tells Congress that it “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
From the Cave plaintiffs’ perspective, this means that the presence of the monument violates their First Amendment rights; however, they would not be the only ones raising concern.
On June 25, 2018 the Cave plaintiffs’ case was merged with the Orsi et. al. v. Martin with the plaintiffs in said case having the same issues with the moment on capital ground.
In the report, Baker wrote about the very unique position she was in saying in her conclusion “This Court does not take lightly a request to declare that a state law is unconstitutional. Statutes are passed by the elected representatives of the people. It is not on a whim that the Court supplants the will of the voters or the decisions of the legislature. Here, the Court is asked to examine the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the summary judgment record.”
With this in mind, the judge issued her verdict writing that the plaintiffs “have met their burden to obtain declaratory and permanent injunctive relief on their First Amendment Establishment Clause claims.”
Baker then gave the state the ability to appeal to the eighth district circuit court within the allotted time for appeals.
According to the Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, this gives them 30 days to appeal the decision.
The Echo reached out to Attorney General Tim Griffin’s office where the communications director issued an official statement saying that the office is “reviewing the decision” while looking over potential options.