933 F.3d 275
3rd Cir.2019Background
- In 1944 Lehigh County adopted an official seal that includes a Latin cross amid many secular symbols (courthouse, flags, industry, agriculture, etc.).
- The seal has been used on county property, documents, flags, vehicles, and the county website for ~75 years without prior legal challenge.
- In 2014 the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) complained; the County voted in 2015 to retain the seal and explained the cross recognized county history and early Christian settlers.
- FFRF and four local members sued in 2016 claiming the seal violates the Establishment Clause; the District Court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs under Lemon/endorsement analysis.
- The Third Circuit stayed appeal pending the Supreme Court’s decision in American Legion, then applied American Legion’s rule giving longstanding monuments a "strong presumption of constitutionality."
- The Third Circuit reversed the District Court, holding plaintiffs failed to overcome the presumption because there was no evidence of discriminatory intent in maintaining the seal or deliberate design-based disrespect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lehigh County seal violates the Establishment Clause | Cross lacks secular purpose and reasonable observer would view it as government endorsement of Christianity | Seal is longstanding, contextualized among secular symbols, and serves historical/commemorative purposes | Seal constitutional under American Legion framework; presumption of constitutionality applies and was not overcome |
| Whether Lemon/endorsement test governs review | Lemon/endorsement should apply to analyze purpose and perception | American Legion limits Lemon; Lemon does not apply to longstanding monuments/symbols | Lemon/endorsement does not apply to established public symbols; use American Legion’s presumption framework |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing as offended observers | Plaintiffs experience direct, unwelcome contact with the seal; have Article III standing | County did not contest contact; argued standing doctrines vary | Third Circuit followed settled circuit precedent and held plaintiffs have standing |
| Whether evidence shows discriminatory intent or deliberate disrespect sufficient to overcome presumption | Hertzog’s 1946 statement shows original religious intent and indicates discrimination | Post-adoption retention decisions were secular and non-discriminatory; no evidence of discriminatory maintenance or deliberate disrespect | Plaintiffs failed to show discriminatory intent in retention or design-based disrespect; presumption not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n, 139 S. Ct. 2067 (2019) (longstanding religiously expressive monuments receive a strong presumption of constitutionality)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (three‑prong test for Establishment Clause; court held Lemon not applicable here)
- Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (context and history can render religious symbols secular for Establishment Clause purposes)
- Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014) (historical practices and understandings inform Establishment Clause analysis)
- McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844 (2005) (consideration of purpose and endorsement in Establishment Clause challenges)
- Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment and standing principles cited)