The American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2018)
- Docket
- 17-1717
- Decided
- 2018-01-01
- Public Good score
- 60 / 100
- Framers' Intent score
- 52 / 100
Summary
Question: <ol><li>Is the display and maintenance of the cross unconstitutional?</li> <li>Under what test should the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism be assessed?</li> <li>Does the expenditure of funds to maintain the cross amount to the government’s excessive entanglement with religion?</li> </ol> Conclusion: <p>The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.</p> <p>Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion in part.</p> <p>The Court explained that although the cross originated as a Christian symbol, it has also taken on a secular meaning. In particular, the cross became a symbol of World War I as evidenced by its use in the present controversy. The <em>Lemon</em> test, which the Court first articulated in 1971 as a way to discern Establishment Clause violations, does not serve its intended purpose, particularly as applied to religious symbols or monuments. Thus, when the question arises whether to keep a religious monument in place (as opposed to a question whether to put up a new one), there should be a presumption that the monument is constitutional.</p> <p>Applying this presumption rather than the <em>Lemon</em> test, the Court found the Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause because it has historical importance beyond its admittedly Christian symbolism.</p> <p>Justice Breyer joined Justice Alito’s opinion in full but wrote a separate concurrence joined by Justice Kagan to highlight his belief that there is no single test for Establishment Clause violations. Rather, a court asked to resolve such questions must consider “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 sphere.”</p> <p>Justice Kavanaugh also joined Justice Alito’s opinion in full and also wrote his own concurring opinion. He even more harshly criticized the <em>Lemon</em> test, arguing that “the Court’s decisions over the span of several decades demonstrate that the <em>Lemon</em> test is not good law and does not apply to Establishment Clause cases in any of” five categories, which he enumerated.</p> <p>Justice Kagan joined most of Justice Alito’s opinion but wrote a separate concurrence to note that, although “rigid application of the <em>Lemon</em> test does not solve every Establishment Clause problem,” courts should still focus on the purpose and effect of government action in deciding whether it violates the Constitution.</p> <p>Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, but based on entirely different reasoning. Justice Thomas does not believe the Establishment Clause applies to state and local governments, and even if it did, it applies only to prevent coercive action by the government. Justice Thomas would overrule the <em>Lemon</em> test in all contexts.</p> <p>Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Gorsuch would dismiss the lawsuit for lack of standing, arguing that simply being offended by the cross’s presence is insufficient to meet the injury requirement of Article III standing.</p> <p>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Ginsburg argued that the cross “is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith,” and using it as a war memorial doesn’t change that. Maryland’s decision to maintain that Christian symbol on public land “elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion.” Justice Ginsburg additionally pointed out that an appropriate remedy for an Establishment Clause violation is not necessarily to destroy the memorial, as the majority suggests, but to transfer title to the land on which it sits to a private entity—in fact, a private entity owned the land when the cross was first erected.</p>
Case Brief
Facts
The Bladensburg Cross, a 40-foot tall Latin cross erected in 1925 as a memorial to World War I soldiers, stands on public land in Maryland. The American Humanist Association challenged its maintenance, arguing it violates the Establishment Clause by promoting Christianity. Maryland maintained the cross as a historically significant war memorial, not a religious symbol.
Procedural History
The American Humanist Association sued Maryland, claiming the cross violated the Establishment Clause. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the Humanist Association, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve conflicting interpretations of the Establishment Clause.
Issue
Does the permanent display of a Christian cross as a war memorial on public land violate the Establishment Clause?
Holding
The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court held that existing religious monuments with historical significance beyond their religious symbolism are presumptively constitutional.
Rule
When assessing the constitutionality of a pre-existing religious monument that has historical meaning divorced from its religious origins, courts should not apply the Lemon test. Instead, they must consider whether the monument's historical context and secular purpose render it constitutional, presuming its validity in the absence of clear government endorsement of religion.
Reasoning
The Court emphasized that the cross originated as a non-religious war memorial, not a Christian symbol. The Lemon test's rigid application is inappropriate for existing monuments, as it fails to acknowledge their historical context. The cross's secular meaning as a WWI memorial, supported by historical evidence, outweighs its Christian symbolism. The government's maintenance of the cross serves a legitimate historical purpose, avoiding excessive entanglement with religion.
Significance
The ruling marks a significant departure from the Lemon test, providing greater protection for religious monuments with historical significance. It establishes a presumption favoring the constitutionality of pre-existing religious displays, affecting future Establishment Clause challenges to longstanding public symbols across the nation.
Public Good Analysis
GPT: The decision allows a Christian war memorial cross to remain on public land, potentially preserving historical memory but simultaneously elevating Christianity over other faiths and secular citizens. This risks deepening religious division and undermining equal protection, as noted by the dissent, while failing to provide meaningful accommodation for non-Christian perspectives in public spaces. | Claude: This decision largely protects religious expression in the public square and avoids unnecessarily removing historical markers. While acknowledging the Christian origins of the cross, it affirms its broader secular significance as a war memorial, preventing what some would see as erasing history. However, critics argue it weakens the Establishment Clause and opens the door for increased religious displays on government property potentially alienating non-religious citizens.
Framers' Intent Analysis
GPT: The framers, notably Jefferson and Madison, intended the Establishment Clause to prevent government endorsement of religion and ensure strict neutrality, as affirmed in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The Court's historical test disregards this core intent by allowing religious symbolism to persist without sufficient secular purpose, contradicting the framers' clear opposition to religious favoritism in government spaces. | Claude: The framers largely advocated for a neutral stance towards religion – neither establishing one nor prohibiting its free exercise. This ruling doesn’t *establish* Christianity, but recognizes a monument's historical context and avoiding religiously motivated censorship aligns with principles of limited government intervention and protecting existing societal structures (as seen in Federalist thought). James Madison, advocating separation of church & state, would likely focus on the lack of coercion; this case lacks any evidence of forced religious adherence.