This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioners, the case involves a dispute over a privately donated, permanent monument that Pleasant Grove City, Utah, wishes to place on public property.
Petitioners argue that the Tenth Circuit erred and that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause forces Pleasant Grove City to accept and erect the monument.
According to City of Pleasant Grove, the city argues that the government's involvement is limited to the act of selecting the monument.
Background and question before the Court
According to United States, the United States, as amicus curiae, filed a brief supporting the petitioners.
The Court is considering whether the government’s selection of a monument constitutes government speech that is subject to First Amendment limits.
What each side argues
Petitioners
Petitioners contend that the Tenth Circuit erred and that the First Amendment requires the city to accept and erect the privately donated monument.
City of Pleasant Grove
According to City of Pleasant Grove, the city argues that the government's involvement is limited to the act of selecting the monument.
United States (Amicus)
According to United States, the United States, as amicus curiae, supports the petitioners’ position.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Souter asked: “At what point in the litigation did you first raise the Government speech argument?”
According to Justice Souter, justice Souter followed up: “Why isn’t that a First Amendment violation?”
Justice Kennedy asked whether the government may discriminate based on content, framing it as a First Amendment question.
Justice Souter asked: “So this case — your claim would disappear if this town in Utah had passed an ordinance saying we adopt the Ten Commandments Monument?”
Justice Scalia asked: “Is there a historical basis for that, or you just made it up?”
Justice Alito asked: “Isn’t merely allowing the monument to be built on public property sufficient acceptance?”
Justice Scalia asked: “Would that be enough?”
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer requested documents: “Give one and I’ll read it. Give me three; I’ll read them.”
- [1] e56f1bf566ee9aa71234-r1-cc18b9aac33c234b.pdf, p. 10
- [2] e56f1bf566ee9aa71234-r1-cc18b9aac33c234b.pdf, p. 20
- [3] e56f1bf566ee9aa71234-r1-cc18b9aac33c234b.pdf, p. 28
- [4] e56f1bf566ee9aa71234-r1-cc18b9aac33c234b.pdf, p. 38
- [5] e56f1bf566ee9aa71234-r1-cc18b9aac33c234b.pdf, p. 42
- [6] e56f1bf566ee9aa71234-r1-cc18b9aac33c234b.pdf, p. 48
- [7] e56f1bf566ee9aa71234-r1-cc18b9aac33c234b.pdf, p. 56
- [8] e56f1bf566ee9aa71234-r1-cc18b9aac33c234b.pdf, p. 61
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- e56f1bf566ee9aa71234-r1-cc18b9aac33c234b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.