Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: February 27, 2019
Decided: June 20, 2019
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
7-2
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor


The American Legion v. American Humanist Association is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 27, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term. It came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The case was consolidated with Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association.[1]

The case concerned a World War I memorial cross on public land. The American Humanist Association argued the government's maintenance of the memorial was an endorsement of Christianity and a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

On June 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 4th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case. The court held the cross did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because (1) it was significant as a secular World War I symbol and (2) it acquired historical importance. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 7-2 opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.[2] Click here for more information on the outcome.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 1961, a government planning commission in Maryland purchased land that a cross honoring World War I veterans stands on. The American Humanist Association and some non-Christian residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, said that they were offended by the cross. They argued that the government's maintenance of the memorial was an endorsement of Christianity and a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
  • The issues: Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross. Whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), or some other test. Whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), applies, the expenditure of funds for routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.[3]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 4th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case in a 7-2 ruling. The court held the cross did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because (1) it was significant as a secular World War I symbol and (2) it acquired historical importance.[2]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 20, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 4th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case
    • February 27, 2019: Oral argument
    • November 2, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
    • June 25, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • October 18, 2017: 4th Circuit reversed and remanded the case

    Background

    In 1918, a cross honoring World War I veterans was constructed in Bladensburg, Maryland. In 1961, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission purchased the land that the cross stands on and took over responsibility for maintaining and repairing the memorial.[5][6]

    The American Humanist Association, whose goal is "to bring about a progressive society where being good without a god is an accepted and respected way to live life," according to its website, and some non-Christian residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, said that they were offended by the cross. They argued that the government's maintenance of the memorial was an endorsement of Christianity and a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[7][5][6]

    The district court found that the planning commission was not violating the Establishment Clause because "(1) the cross has a secular purpose, (2) it neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) it does not have a primary effect of endorsing religion," according to Oyez. The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the case.[5]

    The American Legion appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear the case on November 2, 2018.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    • 1. Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross.
    • 2. Whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), or some other test.
    • 3. Whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), applies, the expenditure of funds for routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.

    Outcome

    On June 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 4th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case in a 7-2 ruling. The court held the cross did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because (1) it was significant as a secular World War I symbol and (2) it acquired historical importance.[2]

    Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in judgment. Justice Kagan concurred in part. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor.

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[2]

    “ Although the cross has long been a preeminent Christian symbol, its use in the Bladensburg memorial has a special significance. After the First World War, the picture of row after row of plain white crosses marking the overseas graves of soldiers who had lost their lives in that horrible conflict was emblazoned on the minds of Americans at home, and the adoption of the cross as the Bladensburg memorial must be viewed in that historical context. ...


    The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent. For some, that monument is a symbolic resting place for ancestors who never returned home. For others, it is a place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices for our Nation. For others still, it is a historical landmark. For many of these people, destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment. For all these reasons, the Cross does not offend the Constitution. [8]

    		”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Kagan concurred in part, disagreeing with Part II-A and Part II-D.[2]

    Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kagan.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Breyer wrote:[2]

    “ [The court must] consider each case in light of the basic purposes that the Religion Clauses were meant to serve: assuring religious liberty and tolerance for all, avoiding religiously based social conflict, and maintaining that separation of church and state that allows each to flourish in its 'separate spher[e].' ... I agree with the Court that allowing the State of Maryland to display and maintain the Peace Cross poses no threat to those ends. [8] ”


    Justice Kavanaugh also concurred. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that he recognized and had "deep respect for the plaintiffs’ sincere objections to seeing the cross on public land." He wrote:[2]

    “ The conclusion that the cross does not violate the Establishment Clause does not necessarily mean that those who object to it have no other recourse. The Court’s ruling allows the State to maintain the cross on public land. The Court’s ruling does not require the State to maintain the cross on public land. [8] ”


    Justice Thomas concurred in judgment. In his opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[2]

    “ Here, respondents briefly suggest that the government’s spending their tax dollars on maintaining the Bladensburg Cross represents coercion, but they have not demonstrated that maintaining a religious display on public property shares any of the historical characteristics of an establishment of religion.[8] ”


    Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas. In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[2]

    “ Today, the Court explains that the plaintiffs are not entitled to demand the destruction of longstanding monuments, and I find much of its opinion compelling. In my judgment, however, it follows from the Court’s analysis that suits like this one should be dismissed for lack of standing. Accordingly, while I concur in the judgment to reverse and remand the court of appeals’ decision, I would do so with additional instructions to dismiss the case.[8] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sotomayor.

    In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote:[2]

    “ Decades ago, this Court recognized that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution demands governmental neutrality among religious faiths, and between religion and nonreligion. ... Numerous times since, the Court has reaffirmed the Constitution’s commitment to neutrality. Today the Court erodes that neutrality commitment, diminishing precedent designed to preserve individual liberty and civic harmony in favor of a 'presumption of constitutionality for longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices.' [8] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio


    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "17-1717 The American Legion v. American Humanist Association," accessed February 5, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Supreme Court of the United States, The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, decided June 20, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "17-1717 The American Legion v. American Humanist Association," accessed February 5, 2019 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "question" defined multiple times with different content
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The American Legion v. American Humanist Association," accessed February 5, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Oyez, "The American Legion v. American Humanist Association," accessed February 6, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 SCOTUSblog, "Justices to consider constitutionality of cross-shaped war memorial on public land: In Plain English," December 10, 2018
    7. ↑ American Humanist Association, "About," accessed February 6, 2019
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_American_Legion_v._American_Humanist_Association&oldid=9117357"