American Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission
874 F.3d 195
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- A 40-foot Latin cross erected in 1925 to memorialize 49 WWI soldiers sits on a traffic island in Bladensburg, Maryland; private organizers and the American Legion led its creation and dedication with Christian prayers.
- The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the Commission) acquired title in 1961 and has spent >$117,000 (plus funds set aside) to maintain the cross.
- The cross is the dominant monument in a Veterans Memorial Park; other secular memorials are smaller and set farther away; the plaque listing the 49 names is weathered and obscured.
- Plaintiffs (individual non-Christians and the American Humanist Association) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Commission’s display and maintenance of the cross violates the Establishment Clause.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants under Lemon; the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding the display has the primary effect of endorsing Christianity and causes excessive entanglement, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to sue | Plaintiffs suffer unwelcome direct contact with a state-endorsed religious display | Commission argued plaintiffs could avoid contact and lacked injury | Standing: plaintiffs (and AHA) have standing; unwelcome direct contact is a cognizable injury |
| Whether Lemon’s secular-purpose prong is met | The cross’s origins and religious uses show sectarian purpose | Commission: maintenance for traffic safety and commemoration is secular | Secular purpose: satisfied (legitimate secular justifications found) |
| Whether display’s primary effect endorses religion (Lemon prong two / Van Orden factors) | Latin cross is the preeminent Christian symbol; size, prominence, history of Christian-only ceremonies, and poor visibility of secular plaque lead a reasonable observer to see endorsement | Commission: cross is a long-standing war memorial in a park; surrounding secular markers, Legion symbol, and history neutralize religious meaning | Effect: violated—reasonable observer would view the cross as endorsing Christianity |
| Whether government involvement creates excessive entanglement (Lemon prong three) | Ownership, maintenance, and substantial public spending on an explicitly Christian symbol create excessive entanglement | Commission: maintenance is routine park/highway safety upkeep and not the kind of surveillance Lemon forbids | Excessive entanglement: violated—ownership/maintenance and prominence of the sectarian symbol demonstrate excessive entanglement |
Key Cases Cited
- Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (articulates wall between church and state principle)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (three‑prong Establishment Clause test: purpose, effect, entanglement)
- Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (plurality and Breyer concurrence discussing monuments, history, context, and limits of Lemon)
- County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) (Establishment Clause guidance on religious displays and context)
- Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2011) (similar cross-as-memorial case finding endorsement due to prominence and context)
- Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2004) (Latin cross as preeminent Christian symbol in memorial context)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (entanglement analysis; not every contact between government and religion is unconstitutional)
- Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2003) (applying Lemon in religious display contexts)