American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J., 760 F.3d 227

On September 13, 2001 a 17‑foot steel column and cross‑beam was recovered from the World Trade Center rubble; many workers perceived it as a Latin cross and it was used in blessings and interfaith services at Ground Zero.
The artifact (“The Cross at Ground Zero”) was later housed temporarily at St. Peter’s Church, then transferred to the Port Authority and ultimately to the National September 11 Memorial and Museum Foundation for museum display.
The Museum placed the cross in a “Finding Meaning at Ground Zero” exhibition with textual panels explaining how rescue workers and survivors used a variety of religious and nonreligious means to cope after 9/11; the text emphasized the cross’s historical role as a symbol of hope for people of many beliefs.
Plaintiffs (American Atheists and three members) sued, alleging the cross’s display without an atheist recognition plaque violated the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause; they sought permission to fund such a plaque.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Port Authority and the Foundation; the Second Circuit affirmed, resolving the case on the First Amendment and equal protection grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Establishment Clause — purpose	The cross’s religious character and devotional use show the Museum’s purpose is religious promotion	Displayed for a secular, historical purpose: to recount how people (religious and nonreligious) coped after 9/11	Secular purpose: objective observer would see historical, not devotional, purpose (Lemon prong 1)
Establishment Clause — effect/endorsement	Displaying the cross without atheist recognition endorses Christianity and marginalizes nonbelievers	Context (exhibit text, other secular artifacts, memorial naming) shows no governmental endorsement of religion	No endorsement: reasonable observer would view primary effect as historical, not government promotion of religion (Lemon prong 2)
Establishment Clause — entanglement	Use and blessing by clergy and prior housing at a church show excessive entanglement	No role of religious authorities in museum display decisions; display is static and non‑venerational	No excessive entanglement (Lemon prong 3)
Equal Protection	Excluding an atheist plaque discriminates and trivializes atheists’ experience after 9/11	Museum speech is government speech selecting historical artifacts; no evidence of discriminatory animus and no comparable atheist artifact exists	No equal‑protection violation: display is permissible government speech and plaintiffs showed no discriminatory intent or actionable exclusion

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (established three‑prong test for Establishment Clause: purpose, effect, entanglement)
McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (analysis of perceived purpose under the Establishment Clause)
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (endorsement/context matters for religious displays; museum/holiday display analogies)
County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) (endorsement test and government recognition of religion)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (government may account for religion in historical context but must avoid establishment)
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (contextual evaluation of religious display in public space)
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government speech doctrine: government may select views it expresses)
Skoros v. City of New York, 437 F.3d 1 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying Lemon and endorsement analysis in Second Circuit)
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (refinement of entanglement/endorsement principles)