FRANKFORT – The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed papers in federal court today arguing that state officials should be held in contempt if they move forward with plans to place a Ten Commandments monument on state Capitol grounds as directed by the 2006 Kentucky General Assembly.

The ACLU argues that putting the monument on Capitol grounds would violate a 2000 federal court order, which prohibits placement of the monument.  The ACLU has asked the court to require state officials to show why they should not be held in contempt.

The original court case, Adland v. Russ, began in 2000 after then-Gov. Paul Patton signed into law a Senate Joint Resolution that called for placing the Ten Commandments monument on Capitol grounds near the floral clock.  The Senate resolution contained several religious references, including referring to the United States as a “Christian nation” and quoting famous Americans about God, the Bible, and / or Christianity.

The ACLU of Kentucky filed the lawsuit on behalf of several members of the clergy and other Kentucky citizens.  The 2000 order was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case.

The Court found at that time that the Senate resolution and proposed display of the monument violated the First Amendment’s prohibition against government establishment of religion and prevented the monument from being displayed.

Earlier this year, the Kentucky General Assembly passed House Bill 277, a section of which directs that the same Ten Commandments monument be removed from storage and placed on Capitol grounds, along with a marker that details “aspects of the legislative and judicial history related to the display of this monument of the Ten Commandments.”  The bill was signed into law by Gov. Ernie Fletcher on March 24, 2006.

Relocating the same Ten Commandments monument on state Capitol grounds – as the legislation dictates – would require the Commonwealth to violate the court’s existing permanent injunction, the ACLU argues in the court papers.

“We hope to persuade the Court that the legislature’s newly discovered ‘historical purpose’ for erecting the monument is a thinly-disguised sham for its original religious purpose,” said David A. Friedman, general counsel for the ACLU of Kentucky.