American Legion v. American Humanist Assn.
588 U.S. 29
SCOTUS2019Background
- In 1925 a 32-foot Latin cross (the Bladensburg Peace Cross) was erected in Prince George’s County, MD, to commemorate 49 local World War I dead; the American Legion completed and dedicated it with clergy participation and a plaque listing names.
- The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission acquired the cross and site in 1961 and has used public funds to maintain it; the site is now a traffic island surrounded by other veteran memorials.
- In 2014 the American Humanist Association (AHA) and individuals sued, claiming the cross on public land and public maintenance violate the Establishment Clause; they sought removal, demolition, or alteration.
- District Court granted summary judgment for the Commission and American Legion, applying Lemon and Justice Breyer’s Van Orden analysis; the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding an Establishment Clause violation.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit: plurality (Alito) upholds the cross, emphasizing historical context, the cross’s WWI commemorative meaning, and a presumption of constitutionality for longstanding religious monuments; several concurrences/dissent debate Lemon, standing, incorporation, and remedial options.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission’s ownership/maintenance of the Bladensburg Cross violates the Establishment Clause | AHA: publicly owned cross and public funding endorse Christianity and thus violate Establishment Clause | Commission/American Legion: cross is a WWI memorial with secular commemorative meaning, longstanding local historic status, and no unconstitutional endorsement | Court: No violation — cross viewed in WWI memorial context and as longstanding community landmark; retention is constitutional |
| Relevance / applicability of Lemon v. Kurtzman test | AHA: Lemon’s purpose/effect/entanglement framework applies and the cross fails the effects/endorsement inquiry | Petitioners: Lemon is a poor fit for longstanding monuments; history/tradition approach governs | Plurality: Lemon is of limited use for long-established monuments; history-and-tradition inquiry is controlling for this class of cases |
| Standing — "offended observer" theory | AHA: members who regularly see the cross are offended and have standing to sue | Petitioners: offended-observer standing is legally insufficient; plaintiffs must show concrete injury | Justice Gorsuch (concurring): offended-observer standing is unsupportable and such suits should often be dismissed for lack of Article III standing; plurality assumed merits and did not fully adopt this view |
| Appropriate remedy if violation found | AHA: removal or alteration of the cross (e.g., amputate arms) | Petitioners: removal would be unnecessary and would show hostility to religion; alternatives exist via political processes | Court did not order remedy because it held no violation; several opinions note remedies (relocation/transfer) would be context-specific if violation were found |
Key Cases Cited
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (three‑pronged test for Establishment Clause: purpose, effect, entanglement)
- Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (upheld longstanding Ten Commandments display; plurality/Justice Breyer concurrence emphasized context and history)
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014) (historical‑practice approach upheld legislative prayer; Court relied on tradition and inclusivity)
- Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upheld legislative prayer based on historical practice)
- County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) (endorsement test for effects inquiry in Establishment Clause cases)
- Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (incorporation of Establishment Clause against the States)
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982) (offended‑observer/psychological injury insufficient for Article III standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (requirements for Article III standing: concrete and particularized injury, causation, redressability)