The two actions were consolidated. In an order dated June 10, 1996, the district court ruled on Summum's motion to alter or amend the judgment in
Summum I and the County's motion to dismiss
Summum II. In addressing Summum's motion to alter or amend, the district court elaborated on and clarified its previous order dismissing
Summum I. The court stated that Summum's reliance on
Capitol Square was misplaced because the Supreme Court had “accepted as a predicate matter” that the government property in question was a public forum, while the issue in the instant case was whether a public forum had in fact been created. Aplt.App. at 230–31. The district court was persuaded the County had not created a public forum simply by allowing one private organization access to the courthouse lawn. Because
Capitol Square did not shed light on whether a public forum had been created, and because in the district court's view the courthouse lawn fell “squarely” into the category of a nonpublic forum,
id. at 231, the court denied Summum's motion to alter or amend the judgment in
Summum I. The district court dismissed
Summum II on the grounds of
res judicata, having previously observed that
Summum II is “in essence, the proposed amendment to the Summum I complaint.”
Id. at 229. The court also observed that Summum's free speech claim was a close companion to its free exercise claim and, as a matter of law, fell within the court's conclusion that the County courthouse lawn was not a public forum.