to take in monuments. But that doesn't mean this case is over. The part about the 10 commandments and the establishment clause to be heard next.

Brian Barnard, attorney for the Summum, released a statement, saying the decision is limited in its scope and effect. The opinion deals with only one part of the lawsuit, the preliminary injunction Summum sought to force Pleasant Grove City to accept the monument. The case will now return to trial court for more proceedings in the next few months, he said.

Barnard said the emphasis in the case will now move to the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government entities from favoring one religion and not another. Barnard said Pleasant Grove has adopted the religious tenets of the Ten Commandments as its own, over the religion of Summum. The Establishment Clause was brought up in the case early on under the Utah Constitution, but Barnard said the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals did not have a clear decision on whether the Ten Commandments constituted religious doctrine. In the meantime, he said, the Ten Commandments have been established as religious doctrine in the 10th Circuit.

With such a designation, Barnard said Pleasant Grove City has now adopted the Ten Commandments as government speech in arguments before the Supreme Court, which violates the Establishment Clause.

More- Humanists of Idado weigh in.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision this week regarding a public Ten Commandments monument in Utah is not a free ticket to allow governments to install religious displays, the Humanists of Idaho said Thursday.

The court decision only affirms that government entities are not required by the First Amendment's free speech provisions to permit all individuals and groups to place monuments on public grounds, the Humanists group said in a news release.

The American Humanist Association also hails the court decision as clearing the way for new lawsuits to remove Ten Commandments monuments where governments have now placed them.