Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byKathlyn Young Modified over 9 years ago
1
{ Capitol Square Review v. Pinette Riley Poling PLS 211 Mr. John Noel December 8, 2015
2
Vincent Pinette, president of Ohio KKK Wanted to place cross in Capitol Square, but was denied Filed suit against the Advisory Board Plaintiff
3
The Advisory Board of Capitol Square Capitol Square is a forum for public activities Denied the KKK’s request to place a cross in their forum Defendant
4
The Advisory Board denied the KKK’s request to place a cross in the Capitol Square The KKK filed suit for an injunction The District Court ordered the injunction Advisory Board was not satisfied so they took it to the Court of Appeals were the original decision was affirmed Was then petitioned the Supreme Court The Original Case
5
Did the Board’s denial of the permit violate free speech and freedom of religion under the First Amendment? Was there a violation of the Establishment Clause? Issue of Law
6
County of Alleghany v. ACLU: the Court ruled that the display of a privately-sponsored crèche on the grand staircase of the Allegheny County Courthouse violated the Establishment Clause Lynch v. Donnelly: the Court ruled that the city's display of a crèche did not violate the Establishment Clause because it did not endorse an established religion Similar Cases
7
7-2 vote in favor of Pinette Dissenting: Justice Stevens and Ginsburg Affirming: Justice Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Breyer, and Rehnquist Supreme Court Decision
8
Justice Stevens Believed that if they allowed the KKK to place the cross they were violating the Establishment Clause Said the court could not order them to place a religious item Dissention
9
Justice Scalia Stated that private symbolic religious expression in a traditional public forum located at the seat of government is no sin No violation of the Establishment Clause, but the Board was not following the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment Affirmation
10
The Supreme Court decision’s was fair because no one should have their rights taken away from them. The Board was violating the First Amendment and the cross should have been allowed to be placed in the first place. Opinion
11
"Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette 515 U.S. 753 (1995)." JUSTIA US Supreme Court. N.p., n.d. Web. "Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette Case Brief." 4LAWSCHOOL. N.p., n.d. Web. "Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette - A Symbol Of Hatred Or Religious Display?" Law Library. N.p., n.d. Web. "CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD V. PINETTE 515 U.S. 753 (1995)." Free Speech. N.p., n.d. Web. "Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette (94-780), 515 U.S. 753 (1995)." Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. "Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 29, 2015. "Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette: A Sign From Above in Establishment Clause Jurisprudence." Catholic University Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. Works Cited
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.