why did the court reach different results in mccreary county v. aclu of kentucky and van orden v. perry

The Supreme Court reached different results in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry due to the different contexts and perceived intentions behind the religious displays in question.

1. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky: In this case, the court ruled against the display of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses. The court applied the "Lemon test" from Lemon v. Kurtzman, which states that a government action is unconstitutional if it lacks a secular purpose, its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or it fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion. The court found that the displays in this case violated the first prong of the Lemon test because they lacked a secular purpose. The court noted that the displays were changed multiple times, each time becoming more religious, which suggested a religious motivation behind the displays.

2. Van Orden v. Perry: In this case, the court ruled in favor of a display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. The court found that the display served a secular purpose of recognizing the historical significance of the Ten Commandments in the nation's system of law. The court also noted that the display had been on the grounds for over 40 years without a legal challenge, which suggested that it was not perceived as an endorsement of religion.

In summary, the court reached different results in these cases due to the different contexts and perceived intentions behind the displays. In McCreary County, the court perceived a religious intention behind the displays, while in Van Orden, the court perceived a secular, historical intention.