American Legion v. American Humanist Association
139 S.Ct. 2067 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For longstanding religious monuments, symbols, and practices, the Establishment Clause analysis is guided by historical practices and understandings rather than the Lemon test, creating a strong presumption of constitutionality.
Facts:
- In 1925, a 40-foot tall Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, was erected on private land by local citizens and the American Legion to honor 49 Prince George's County, Maryland soldiers who died in World War I.
- The monument's organizers had the secular motive of commemorating the soldiers, and the base of the cross includes a plaque listing the names of the fallen soldiers and bearing the words 'valor,' 'endurance,' 'courage,' and 'devotion.'
- The cross is located in a median at a busy intersection and is part of a park that also contains other veterans' memorials.
- In 1961, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, a state agency, acquired the cross and the land it sits on to preserve it.
- The Commission has since maintained the monument with public funds.
- The cross stood for approximately 90 years without generating significant public controversy or litigation.
Procedural Posture:
- The American Humanist Association and individual residents sued the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the Commission's ownership and maintenance of the Bladensburg Cross violated the Establishment Clause.
- The American Legion intervened to defend the cross.
- The federal district court (trial court) granted summary judgment for the Commission, finding the cross constitutional.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- A panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding that the cross violated the Establishment Clause under the Lemon test because it had the primary effect of endorsing Christianity.
- The Commission and the American Legion petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's ownership and maintenance of a large, long-standing Latin cross monument honoring war veterans violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No. Allowing the State of Maryland to display and maintain the Peace Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause. Establishment Clause challenges should be resolved on a case-by-case basis by considering the Clause's basic purposes: assuring religious liberty, avoiding religious-based social conflict, and maintaining the separation of church and state. The Peace Cross poses no threat to these ends due to several factors: its unique association with the fallen soldiers of World War I, the secular commemorative motives of its organizers, its patriotic message strengthened by secular inscriptions and its location among other memorials, and its 94-year history without community controversy. Ordering its removal at this late date would signal a hostility toward religion that is inconsistent with Establishment Clause traditions, though a newly erected cross under different circumstances might raise constitutional concerns.
Concurring - Justice Kavanaugh
No. The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause. This case demonstrates that the Court no longer applies the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, instead using a history and tradition test for cases involving religious symbols. The Lemon test fails to explain the Court's precedents in the five major categories of Establishment Clause cases. A government practice does not violate the Establishment Clause if it is not coercive and is either: (i) rooted in history and tradition; (ii) treats religious and secular actors equally; or (iii) represents a permissible legislative accommodation. The practice of displaying religious war memorials is not coercive and is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition, and therefore the Bladensburg Cross is constitutional.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the applicability of the Lemon test, which has been the dominant, albeit heavily criticized, framework for Establishment Clause analysis for decades. By establishing a 'presumption of constitutionality' for longstanding religious displays, the Court shifts the focus to history, tradition, and non-coercion. This makes it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in challenges against existing monuments with religious significance that have become part of the historical landscape. The decision creates a clearer safe harbor for established symbols while leaving the standard for new government displays of religious imagery less certain.
