ACLU of Kentucky

United States District Court. On behalf of a former KBHC social worker who was fired for being a lesbian as well as a coalition of religious leaders and citizens, the national ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project and the ACLU of Kentucky, along with the national office of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, filed this lawsuit against KBHC and the state. The lawsuit contends that because KBHC receives most of its money from the state to provide foster care for the state’s wards, its religion-based discrimination against gays and lesbians violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The case also asserts that KBHC is a pervasively sectarian institution that, independent of its employment policies, cannot constitutionally receive government funding.

The plaintiffs seek to prohibit KBHC from continuing its religious discrimination or, if it refuses to do so, to give up its state funding.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Simpson III dismissed most of the First Amendment claims related to employment and the Sixth Circuit held that it does not yet have jurisdiction to hear our appeal from that decision. The case now has returned to Judge Simpson’s court, where we seek to persuade him that the state’s funding of pervasively sectarian activities is unconstitutional. Once the court decides that issue, the parties will be in a position to appeal the entire case to the Sixth Circuit.

United States Court of Appeals / United States District Court. These four lawsuits are the second set of challenges to Ten Commandments postings in county government buildings (four courthouses and one public hospital). On behalf of ACLU of Kentucky members and local citizens, we argued that the postings violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The context of the individual postings initially ranged from stand-alone to “historical documents” displays like those enjoined in the first set of cases. After we filed suit, each government modified its display to contain the same set of “historical documents.” The Mercer, Garrard, and Rowan cases originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Grayson County case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District.

In the Western District, U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley agreed with Judge Coffman and granted a preliminary injunction requiring removal of the Grayson County display. The case was then stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decision in McCreary and Pulaski counties.

In the Eastern District, U.S. District Judge Karl Forester disagreed with Judge Coffman about the displays’ constitutionality and refused to require the removal of the Rowan and Garrard County displays while the cases are pending. The Garrard and Rowan County cases were stayed in the Eastern District pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decision in McCreary and Pulaski counties.

Judge Forester also granted summary judgment in favor of the government in the Mercer County case. We appealed that decision to the Sixth Circuit, argued it before a three-judge panel, and now await a decision.

United States Court of Appeals / United States District Court. These four lawsuits are the second set of challenges to Ten Commandments postings in county government buildings (four courthouses and one public hospital). On behalf of ACLU of Kentucky members and local citizens, we argued that the postings violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The context of the individual postings initially ranged from stand-alone to “historical documents” displays like those enjoined in the first set of cases. After we filed suit, each government modified its display to contain the same set of “historical documents.” The Mercer, Garrard, and Rowan cases originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Grayson County case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District.

In the Western District, U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley agreed with Judge Coffman and granted a preliminary injunction requiring removal of the Grayson County display. The case was then stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decision in McCreary and Pulaski counties.

In the Eastern District, U.S. District Judge Karl Forester disagreed with Judge Coffman about the displays’ constitutionality and refused to require the removal of the Rowan and Garrard County displays while the cases are pending. The Garrard and Rowan County cases were stayed in the Eastern District pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decision in McCreary and Pulaski counties.

Judge Forester also granted summary judgment in favor of the government in the Mercer County case. We appealed that decision to the Sixth Circuit, argued it before a three-judge panel, and now await a decision.

 In 2001, the ACLU of Kentucky challenged a Ten Commandments display in the Grayson County courthouse.  U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley granted the ACLU's request for a preliminary injunction and ordered Grayson Co. to remove the Ten Commandments from the display.  Since then, the case was stayed (held in abeyance) pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in the ACLU's companion cases challenging Ten Commandments displays in McCreary and Pulaski counties.

 After the Supreme Court's decision in McCreary Co. v. ACLU of Kentucky, the parties renewed their litigation efforts in Grayson County.  After conducting discovery and briefing the legal issues, Judge McKinley found that Grayson County acted with a predominantly religious purpose in erecting the Ten Commandments display and therefore violated the Establishment Clause.  In rejecting the County's contention that it erected the display for educational or historical purposes, Judge McKinley stated in his opinion that "there is no evidence in the record to suggest that any Fiscal Court member ever considered such a rationale."  The County formally declared its intention to appeal the Judge's decision on April 21, 2008