The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday that it would hear the case of a group that wants to erect a religious monument in a Pleasant Grove park.

Pleasant Grove city is hoping that the Supreme Court will overturn a 2007 ruling by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that granted the Salt Lake City-based religious group Summum permission to put up a monument of its Seven Aphorisms in Pioneer Park, which already displays a Ten Commandments monument. Summum filed a brief in February asking the Supreme Court to not hear the case.

Ed White, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice in Ann Arbor, Mich. who is representing Pleasant Grove, said both sides will file several briefings with the court. White said he expects the court to hear the case in the fall after its summer recess ends.

"Obviously we're very happy that the court accepted this case. It's a very important case," White said. "This case has implications for all the cities in Utah and throughout the federal 10th circuit."

Summum was founded in 1975. The group follows tenets of Gnostic Christianity and ancient Egyptian teachings, including mummification.

Brian Barnard, an attorney who is representing Summum in its case against Pleasant Grove, said the case boils down to a simple issue of fairness. Pleasant Grove allowed the Fraternal Order of Eagles to put up a Ten Commandments monument in Pioneer Park in the 1970s, Barnard said, and Summum believes it should have the same right to display its Seven Aphorisms there.

"It's simply a free speech issue. Public parks have been traditionally the place where free speech occurs," Barnard said. "When a city like Pleasant Grove allows one group to put up a monument containing religious beliefs, I think ... the long-standing jurisprudence is that everybody gets to do it. We're hopeful that the United States Supreme Court will see that and agree with the 10th circuit."

White said the question at the heart of the case is whether a city must allow a counterpoint to any monument displayed on public property. Groups such as Veterans of Foreign Wars have erected war memorial monuments in cities across the U.S., and White questioned whether a ruling in Summum's favor would require those cities to allow anti-war or anti-American monuments on public property as well.

"As we said in our brief [to the Supreme Court], if a city puts up a statue of liberty, are they going to be compelled when someone wants to put up a statue of tyranny right next door to it?" White said.

White said the Supreme Court's decision could have a major impact on a lawsuit Summum filed against Duchesne City. The American Center for Law and Justice is also representing Duchesne City, and has asked the Supreme Court to refrain from deciding whether to hear the Duchesne case until it rules on Summum v. Pleasant Grove City. The ruling, White said, will have major implications for both cases.

"We're very hopeful," White said.

Barnard had hoped that the Supreme Court would decline to hear the case, which would preserve the 10th circuit's decision. Now that the court has decided to hear the case, Barnard said he is optimistic that the Supreme Court will agree with the previous ruling.

"There was no need for the Supreme Court to get involved. Obviously, the Supreme Court thought differently. But we'll make the arguments to the Supreme Court that the 10th circuit was right, and hopefully the United States Supreme Court will agree," Barnard said.

• Jeremy Duda can be reached at 344-2561 or jduda@heraldextra.com.