Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the constitutionality of two recurring Christmas and Hanukkah holiday displays located on public property in downtown Pittsburgh.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been involved in the following legal cases, either by representing a party, or filing an amicus brief, or otherwise significantly involved. 1920s [ edit ]
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010) American Legion v. American Humanist Association, No. 17-1717, 588 U.S ...
In 1989, local attorney Roslyn Litman [2] pursued a case to the Supreme Court, which banned a nativity scene displayed in the Allegheny Courthouse due to its religious implications (in violation of the Establishment clause) in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union. [3] [self-published source] [4]
Let these festive lights remind us that we are the keepers of the flame of liberty and our legacy of freedom." Three years later, by two 5–4 decisions, the United States Supreme Court upheld in part and denied in part the city's position in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union.
WASHINGTON – Two groups of advocates – a coalition of 18 states and a collection of immigration groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union – have filed lawsuits challenging President ...
The governor's administration filed a legal notice in the case that began in 2019, Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, affirming its position.
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 2, 2005. [1] At issue was whether the Court should continue to inquire into the purpose behind a religious display and whether evaluation of the government's claim of secular purpose for the religious displays may take evolution into ...