American Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass'n
588 U.S. 29
SCOTUS2019Background
- The Bladensburg "Peace Cross," a 94-year-old Latin cross erected in 1925 by private citizens to commemorate World War I dead, sits on public land maintained by a Maryland state agency (the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission).
- The American Humanist Association challenged the State's maintenance of the Cross under the Establishment Clause, seeking removal or alteration of the monument.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held that the Cross did not violate the Establishment Clause as applied in this context.
- The majority/plurality relied heavily on history-and-tradition analysis, emphasizing the Cross's age, commemorative purpose, secular context among other memorials, lack of evidence of discriminatory motive, and long-standing community acceptance.
- Several concurrences and dissents stressed differing doctrines: some justices advocated overruling or abandoning the Lemon test and applying historical practice; others urged limits on incorporation, coercion-based analysis, or urged dismissal for lack of standing; the dissent argued the Cross conveys governmental endorsement of Christianity and violates neutrality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether maintaining the Peace Cross on public land violates the Establishment Clause | The Cross is an inherently Christian sectarian symbol; state maintenance endorses Christianity and excludes non-Christians | The Cross is a longstanding war memorial with secular commemorative purpose and context; no coercion or discriminatory motive shown | Court upheld constitutionality—Cross may remain given history, context, and lack of endorsement/coercion evidence |
| Proper Establishment Clause test: Lemon or history/tradition/coercion approach | Lemon's purpose/effect/entanglement framework should control and show endorsement here | Lemon is unworkable; history and tradition (and absence of coercion) better guide outcomes | Court declined to apply Lemon for monuments; relied on historical-practice analysis (plurality) and coercion/history concerns (concurring opinions) |
| Standing: can an offended observer sue to challenge a longstanding public religious display? | Plaintiffs asserted frequent, unwelcome encounters with the Cross suffice for Article III injury | Defendants contended mere offense is not a concrete, particularized injury; standing doctrine limits such suits | Some justices would reject "offended observer" standing; plurality resolved merits, while Gorsuch (concurring) argued dismissal for lack of standing |
| Scope of decision: does preserving longstanding religious monuments permit new religious monuments? | Plaintiffs warned a broad presumption would allow new sectarian displays | Defendants argued decision is limited to longstanding, contextualized monuments | Court emphasized the distinction between longstanding displays and new ones; decision does not categorically sanction newly erected religious memorials |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (upholding longstanding Ten Commandments display; history and context can defeat endorsement claim)
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative chaplain practice based on historical tradition)
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014) (history-and-tradition approach to legislative prayer)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (articulated purpose/effect/entanglement test criticized as unworkable)
- County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) (endorsement/effect analysis for religious displays)
- Buono v. Norton (Buono v. Salazar), 559 U.S. 700 (2010) (plurality/dissent exploring context, transfer, and remedy for cross memorial)
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (early incorporation/neutrality discussion under Establishment Clause)
- Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (Establishment Clause analysis focused on coercion in school prayer context)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements: injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982) (rejection of standing based on psychological offense from government action)