You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 3.89.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪L235‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 18:20, 24 March 2026.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Wiki13‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: Visit the FAQ if you are affected .
- Start of block: 13:43, 5 May 2022
- Expiry of block: 13:43, 5 May 2024
Your current IP address is 3.89.215.189. The blocked range is 3.89.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((Use mdy dates|date=September 2023))
((More citations needed|date=April 2012))
((Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky
  |ArgueDate=March 2
  |ArgueYear=2005
  |DecideDate=June 27
  |DecideYear=2005
  |FullName=McCreary County, Kentucky, et al., v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, this case was initially started by Paul Lee Sr. Of Pulaski County Kentucky, et al.
  |USVol=545
  |USPage=844
  |ParallelCitations=125 S. Ct. 2722; 162 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 729; 2005 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 5211; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 532
  |Docket=03-1693
  |Prior=Judgment for plaintiff, 96 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/96/679/2421080/ 679] ([[E.D. Ky.]] 2000); affirmed, 354 [[F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/354/438/575950/ 438] ([[6th Cir.]] 2003); rehearing denied, 361 F.3d 928 (6th Cir. 2004); [[Certiorari|cert]]. granted, ((ussc|543|924|2004|el=no)).
  |Subsequent=Permanent injunction denied, [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4729981/153/aclu-of-ky-v-mccreary-county-ky/ No. 6:99-cv-00507], 2007 [[Westlaw|WL]] 2903210 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 28, 2007); judgment amended and permanent injunction granted, unreported (E.D. Ky. 2008); affirmed, 607 [[F.3d]] [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20100609112 439] (6th Cir. 2010); cert. denied, ((ussc|562|1217|2011|el=no)).
  |Holding=Displaying the [[Ten Commandments]] bespeaks a religious object unless they are integrated with a [[secular]] message. The government violated the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment]] in three ways: The first way was that they were displaying the Ten Commandments in isolation; the second for showing the Commandments along with other religious passages; the third for presenting the Commandments in a presentation of the "Foundations of American Law" exhibit.
  |Majority=Souter
  |JoinMajority=Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer
  |Concurrence=O'Connor
  |Dissent=Scalia
  |JoinDissent=Rehnquist, Thomas; Kennedy (Parts II and III)
  |LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. I]]
))

'''''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.<ref>((ussc|name=McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union|545|844|2005)).</ref> 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 account under an [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment]] analysis.

In a suit brought by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] of Kentucky, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit]] held that the displays—in this case, a [[Ten Commandments]] display at the [[McCreary County, Kentucky|McCreary County]] courthouse in [[Whitley City, Kentucky]] and a Ten Commandments display at the [[Pulaski County, Kentucky|Pulaski County]] courthouse—were unconstitutional.  The appeal from that decision, argued by [[Mathew Staver]] of [[Liberty Counsel]], urged reformulation or abandonment of the "''Lemon'' test" set forth in ''[[Lemon v. Kurtzman]]'', which has been applied to religious displays on government property and to other Establishment Clause issues.

The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, in a 5–4 decision, that the display was unconstitutional. The same day, the Court handed down another 5–4 decision in ''[[Van Orden v. Perry]]'' with the opposite outcome. The "[[swing vote]]" in both cases was Justice [[Stephen Breyer]].

==History==
After three Kentucky counties posted large and readily visible copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses, and a school district in a third county posted a similar display, the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU) sued. In response to the suit, and before the district court responded, both counties adopted similar resolutions that clarified the purposes of the displays as acknowledging "the precedent legal code upon which the civil and criminal codes of ... Kentucky are founded."  The district court, following the ''[[Lemon v. Kurtzman]]'' test, entered a [[preliminary injunction]] against the newly modified exhibits, finding that there was no secular purpose behind the inherently religious displays.<ref>((cite court |litigants=American Civil Liberties Union v. Pulaski County |vol=96 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=691 |pinpoint= |court=E.D. Ky. |date=2000 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/96/679/2421080/ |accessdate=2022-05-31 |quote=))</ref>

After changing counsel, the counties revised the exhibits again. The new posting, entitled "The Foundations of American Law and Government Display", consisted of nine framed documents of equal size. One set out the Commandments explicitly identified as the "[[King James Version of the Bible|King James Version]]", quoted them at greater length, and explained that they have profoundly influenced the formation of Western legal thought and the American nation. In addition to the Commandments, the counties added historical documents containing religious references as their sole common element. The additional documents included framed copies of the [[Magna Carta]], the [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]], the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]], the lyrics of the [[Star Spangled Banner]], the [[Mayflower Compact]], the National Motto, the Preamble to the [[Kentucky Constitution]], and a picture of [[Lady Justice]].<ref>''McCreary County'', 545 U.S. at 855-56.</ref>

On the ACLU's motion, the district court included this third display in the preliminary injunction despite the counties' professed intent to show that the Commandments were part of the foundation of American Law and Government and to educate county citizens as to the documents. The court took proclaiming the Commandments' foundational value as a [[religious]], rather than [[secular]], purpose under ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' and found that the counties' asserted educational goals crumbled upon an examination of this case's history.<ref>((cite court |litigants=American Civil Liberties Union v. McCreary County |vol=145 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=845 |pinpoint= |court=E.D. Ky. |date=2001 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/145/845/2421449/ |accessdate=2022-05-31 |quote=))</ref>

The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals]] affirmed the decision, stressing that, under ''Stone'', displaying the Commandments bespeaks a religious object unless the display is integrated with other material so as to carry "a secular message."<ref>((cite court |litigants=American Civil Liberties Union v. McCreary County |vol=354 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=438 |pinpoint=449 |court=6th Cir. |date=2003 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/354/438/575950/ |accessdate=2022-05-31 |quote=))</ref> The Sixth Circuit saw no integration because of a lack of a demonstrated analytical or historical connection between the Commandments and the other documents.<ref>''McCreary County'', 354 F.3d at 451.</ref>

The county petitioned for a writ of ''[[certiorari]]'', which was granted on October 12, 2004.<ref>((cite court |litigants=McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky |vol=543 |reporter=[[United States Reports|U.S.]] |opinion=924|court=[[Supreme Court of the United States|S. Ct.]] |date=2004 |url=https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep543/usrep543orders/usrep543orders.pdf |postscript=.))</ref> Oral arguments were heard on March 2, 2005.<ref>((cite court |litigants=McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky |vol=545 |reporter=[[United States Reports|U.S.]] |opinion=844 |pinpoint=844 |court=[[Supreme Court of the United States|S. Ct.]]|date=2005 |url=https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep545/usrep545844/usrep545844.pdf |postscript=.))</ref> [[Mathew Staver|Mathew D. Staver]] argued the cause for the county, [[Solicitor General of the United States|Solicitor General]] [[Paul Clement|Paul D. Clement]] appeared on behalf the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]] in support of the county, and David A. Friedman, then the general counsel of the Kentucky [[American Civil Liberties Union|ACLU]],<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.aclu-ky.org/en/news/faces-liberty-david-friedman |title=Faces of Liberty: David Friedman |last=Duke |first=Amber |date=July 23, 2015 |website=ACLU Kentucky |publisher=ACLU of Kentucky |access-date=2024-03-12))</ref> argued for the ACLU.<ref>((cite court |litigants=McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky |vol=545 |reporter=[[United States Reports|U.S.]] |opinion=844 |pinpoint=849 |court=[[Supreme Court of the United States|S. Ct.]]|date=2005 |url=https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep545/usrep545844/usrep545844.pdf |postscript=.))</ref>

==Opinion of the court==

Justice [[David Souter]] wrote the opinion of the Court.  First, the Court reiterated its previous holding in ''Stone v. Graham'' that the Commandments are "undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths" and that their display in public classrooms "violated the First Amendment's bar against establishment of religion."  Next, the Court noted that the [[Lemon test|''Lemon'' test]]'s "purpose prong" was rarely dispositive.  Nonetheless, it emphasized that that prong "serves an important function."  Indeed, anytime the government "acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion," or "to favor one religion over another," that advancement violates the Establishment Clause.<ref>''McCreary County'', 545 U.S. at 859-60.</ref>

Although the counties asked the Court to overrule the ''Lemon'' test and, necessarily, the inquiry into governmental purpose, the Court refused to do so.  The Court noted that, in several areas of the law, an inquiry into the government's purpose is an important endeavor.<ref>''McCreary County'', 545 U.S. at 861-62.</ref> The Court also stated that it was confident in the inquiry into purpose, because such inquiries had not yielded a finding of "a religious purpose dominant every time a case is filed."<ref>''McCreary County'', 545 U.S. at 863.</ref>

As to a second issue, whether the Court should consider the evolutionary purpose or the most recent purpose, the Court held that it should consider the evolutionary purpose of the display.  "But the world is not made brand new every morning, and the Counties are simply asking us to ignore perfectly probative evidence; they want an absentminded objective observer, not one presumed to be familiar with the history of the government's actions and competent to learn what history has to show."<ref>''McCreary County'', 545 U.S. at 866.</ref>

The Court, reviewing the lower court's ruling ''[[De novo review|de novo]]'', upheld the lower courts' rulings, noting that a pastor was present to testify to the certainty of the existence of [[God]] at the dedication of one of the displays, the modified displays contained "theistic and Christian references,"<ref>''McCreary County'', 545 U.S. at 869.</ref> and there was a "religious purpose" in the final modification.<ref>''McCreary County'', 545 U.S. at 881.</ref>

==Concurring opinion==

((quote box
| quote  = Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?| source =
--[[Supreme Court Justice|Justice]] [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] in her opinion.<ref>''McCreary County'', 545 U.S. at 882 (O'Connor, J., concurring).</ref>
| width  = 27%
| align  = right
| style = padding:8px;
))

[[File:Sandra Day O'Connor.jpg|thumb|200px|right| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor]]

Justice O'Connor expressed her own views of the controversy in a concurring opinion:

<blockquote>It is true that many Americans find the Commandments in accord with their personal beliefs. But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment . . .. Nor can we accept the theory that Americans who do not accept the Commandments' validity are outside the First Amendment's protections. There is no list of approved and disapproved beliefs appended to the First Amendment–and the Amendment's broad terms ("free exercise," "establishment," "religion") do not admit of such a cramped reading. It is true that the Framers lived at a time when our national religious diversity was neither as robust nor as well recognized as it is now. They may not have foreseen the variety of religions for which this Nation would eventually provide a home. They surely could not have predicted new religions, some of them born in this country. But they did know that line-drawing between religions is an enterprise that, once begun, has no logical stopping point. They worried that "the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects." Memorial 186. The Religion Clauses, as a result, protect adherents of all religions, as well as those who believe in no religion at all.<ref>''McCreary County'', 545 U.S. at 884 (O'Connor, J., concurring).</ref></blockquote>

==Dissenting opinion==
Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, in which he argued that public acknowledgement of the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is permissible under the First Amendment:

<blockquote>Besides appealing to the demonstrably false principle that the government cannot favor religion over irreligion, today's opinion suggests that the posting of the Ten Commandments violates the principle that the government cannot favor one religion over another . . .. That is indeed a valid principle where public aid or assistance to religion is concerned, ... or where the free exercise of religion is at issue, ... but it necessarily applies in a more limited sense to public acknowledgment of the Creator. If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word "God," or "the Almighty," one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.

The three most popular religions in the United States, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam–which combined account for 97.7% of all believers–are monotheistic . . .. All of them, moreover (Islam included), believe that the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses, and are divine prescriptions for a virtuous life . . .. Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable, insofar as discriminating against other religions is concerned, from publicly honoring God. Both practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse range of the population–from Christians to Muslims–that they cannot be reasonably understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.<ref>''McCreary County'', 545 U.S. at 893-94 (Scalia, J., dissenting).</ref></blockquote>

==Subsequent history==
In November 2010, counties in Kentucky filed a new appeal to the Supreme Court, requesting the allowance of the display once again.  The case was again titled ''McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky''.  The plaintiffs did not necessarily seek to "overrule" the decision in the original case.  Instead, they claimed that the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit Court]] had failed to follow the majority's comment allowing government to reform the reasoning of a display to render it constitutional.  The plaintiffs argued in their appeal that local government has given a firm secular reasoning for the display as the commemoration of historical documents and have renounced the religious motivation for the display, which was the court's reasoning for its prohibition.  On the other hand, the plaintiffs also argued for an overthrow of the [[Lemon test]], which indeed in that respect would have "overruled" the prior decision.<ref>((cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/11/ten-commandments-issue-again/|title=Ten Commandments issue — again : SCOTUSblog|date=November 4, 2010|access-date=5 November 2010))</ref>

The Sixth Circuit Court did not discern any essential change from a religious to a secular motive for the plaintiffs' wish to display the Ten Commandments;<ref>((cite court |litigants=American Civil Liberties Union v. McCreary County |vol=607 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=439 |pinpoint=446 |court=6th Cir. |date=2010 |url=https://casetext.com/case/american-civil-lib-v-mccreary-county |accessdate=2022-06-05 |quote=))</ref> and in February 2011, the Supreme Court without comment declined to review the case.<ref>''McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union'', ((ussc|562|1217|2011|el=no)).</ref><ref>((cite news |last=Richey |first=Warren |date=2011-02-22 |title=Supreme Court refuses appeal about Ten Commandments displays |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0222/Supreme-Court-refuses-appeal-about-Ten-Commandments-displays |newspaper=Christian Science Monitor |access-date=2015-04-12 ))</ref>

==See also==
* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 545]]
* [[Separation of church and state in the United States]]
* ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980)
* ''[[Glassroth v. Moore]]'' (11th Cir. 2003)
* ''[[Van Orden v. Perry]]'' (2005)
* ''[[Green v. Haskell County Board of Commissioners]]'' (10th Cir. 2009)
* ''[[Pleasant Grove City v. Summum]]'' (2009)

==References==
((Reflist))

==External links==
* ((caselaw source
 | case=''McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky'', ((ussc|545|844|2005|el=no))
 | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZC.html
 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/799993/mccreary-county-v-american-civil-liberties-union-of-ky/
 | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/545/844.html
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12562965837902735221
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/844/
 | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1693
))
* [https://archive.today/20130415085526/http://www.lc.org/pressrelease/2004/nr120804.htm Liberty Counsel press release]
* [https://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=16777&c=286 ACLU press release]
* [https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week824/cover.html Religion & Ethics Newsweekly (PBS)], includes video coverage

((US1stAmendment|establishment|state=expanded))
((Ten Commandments))

((DEFAULTSORT:Mccreary County V. Aclu Of Kentucky))
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court]]
[[Category:Establishment Clause case law]]
[[Category:McCreary County, Kentucky]]
[[Category:Ten Commandments]]
[[Category:2005 in United States case law]]
[[Category:2005 in religion]]
[[Category:American Civil Liberties Union litigation]]
[[Category:Legal history of Kentucky]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (edit)
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Caselaw source (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Cite court (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:First word (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:If all (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:If between (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:If empty (view source) (protected)
Template:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox SCOTUS case (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case/courts (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Last word (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Quote box (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Quote box/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:SCOTUS URL Docket (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:SCOTUS URL Docket New (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Small (view source) (protected)
Template:Spaces (view source) (protected)
Template:Str find (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Template other (view source) (protected)
Template:Ten Commandments (edit)
Template:Tomorrow (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:US1stAmendment (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Use mdy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ussc (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:· (view source) (protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:If empty (view source) (protected)
Module:Infobox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Infobox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Italic title (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:Redirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCreary_County_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union"