The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
|The American Legion v. American Humanist Association|
|Argued February 27, 2019|
|Full case name||The American Legion, et al. v. American Humanist Association, et al.|
|Prior history||Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-Nat. Capital Park, 147 F. Supp. 3d 373 (D. Md. 2015); reversed, American Humanist v. MD-Nat'l Capital Park, 874 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2017); rehearing en banc denied, 891 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2018); cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 451 (2018).|
|Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross, whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under prior case law tests, and whether the expenditure of funds for routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment|
The American Legion v. American Humanist Association is a current case before the United States Supreme Court dealing with the separation of church and state related to maintaining the Peace Cross, a World War I memorial shaped after a Latin cross, on government-owned land, though initially built in 1925 with private funds on private lands. The case is a consolidation of two petitions to the court, that of The American Legion who built the cross (Docket 17-1717), and of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission who own the land and maintain the memorial (Docket 18-18). Both petitions challenge the Fourth Circuit's ruling that, regardless of the secular purpose the cross was built for in honoring the deceased soldiers, the cross emboldened a religious symbol and had ordered it altered or razed.
The 40 feet (12 m)-tall Peace Cross (officially, the Bladensburg World War I Memorial) was constructed in Bladensburg, Maryland by the American Legion with private funding in 1925 to honor the local servicemen that died during World War I. The creators opted for the cross shape as it was similar to the gravemarkers that were left in the war theaters to commemorate the dead buried there, and not for the Christianity religious implications. At the time it was built, the monument was on private land, but the land was donated in 1961 to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, a bi-county agency in Maryland, making it parkland owned by the state. The Commission continued to maintain the Cross even as additional highways were laid down across the land; the Cross eventually became a structure on the median of a highway, creating a potential safety hazard. The Commission provided illumination for the monument at night, and allowed the Cross to be used as a central point for Memorial Day and Veterans Day observances. Additional war memorials were built on nearby lands, creating the local Veterans Memorial Park.
Around 2012, local residents recognized that the placement of the Cross on state lands and the Commission's continued care for it with taxpayer funds may be against the principle of the separation of church and state. A formal lawsuit was filed by the American Humanist Association, an atheist advocacy group, that argued that the Peace Cross violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The case was heard by Judge Deborah Chasanow of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, which granted summary judgement for the Commission. Chasanow wrote that by the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry and Town of Greece v. Galloway that the purpose of the Peace Cross was secular to honor fallen soldiers, and did not violate the Establishment Clause.
The American Humanist Association appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling on a 2-1 basis, with the majority, Judges Stephanie Thacker and James A. Wynn Jr. arguing that despite the Commission's argument on the monument's secular nature, the symbol of the cross had been considered a religious icon for centuries, and thus they considered that its installation and maintenance on public lands violated the Establishment Clause. Further, the decision argued that the Commission's continued maintenance of the memorial contributed to entangling the state with a religious figure, further violating the Establishment Clause, even though the Commissions argued this was for purposes of motorist safety. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the Commission's maintenance of the Peace Cross has "a primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government and religion". The request for an en banc hearing was denied, through dissenters to this decision, including Chief Judge Roger Gregory who dissented on the first ruling, feared that the ruling could affect thousands of cross-shaped memorials on public lands even though they were built under similar secular purposes as the Peace Cross. With the refusal, the Fourth Circuit subsequently ordered the Peace Cross to be altered so that it no longer resembled a cross, or to be razed.
Both the Commission and the American Legion filed petitions for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to review the Fourth Circuit's decision. Both petitions were granted and consolidated to a single case. Questions asked included whether a memorial having the shape of a cross placed on public lands should be considered a violation of the Establishment Clause or under what past tests should they considered under, and whether maintaining such memorials for other interests of the state, such as road safety, creates entanglement under the Establishment Clause. Among those supporting the Commission and American Legion included numerous veterans groups, the Trump Administration, and several Congresspersons. The Court accepted the case in November 2018.
The issue of cross-shaped memorials on public lands had been previously heard in Salazar v. Buono in 2010; while the 5-4 majority ruled that the cross could stay, the rationale was heavily divided by the justices, with a total of six different opinions submitted as part of the case. This had made it difficult to use Salazar as case law for other related cases, such as this one.
Oral arguments were heard February 27, 2019. Observers to the court believed the justices were in majority to support reversing the Fourth Circuit, believing that the memorial as built had secular purposes reflecting the way soldiers were memorialized at the time. However, how to qualify this under past case law was left as a question, and that if new memorials carrying the cross shape were installed today, they may not be acceptable under the Establishment Clause.
- Hurley, Lawrence (February 27, 2019). "U.S. top court sympathetic toward Maryland cross in major religion case". Reuters. Retrieved February 27, 2019.
- de Vogue, Ariane (February 27, 2019). "Supreme Court suggests memorial cross does not violate separation of church and state". CNN. Retrieved February 27, 2019.
- Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-Nat. Capital Park, 147 F. Supp. 3d 373 (D. Md. 2015).
- von Spakovsky, Hans (December 1, 2015). "Judge Throws Out Lawsuit Filed by Those Who Found a WWI Memorial Cross Offensive". The Daily Signal. Retrieved March 2, 2019.
- Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-Nat. Capital Park, 874 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2017).
- Baumgaertner, Emily (October 29, 2017). "A 40-Foot Cross Has Honored War Dead for 90 Years. Is It Unlawful?". The New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2019.
- Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-Nat. Capital Park, 891 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2018).
- "Does a memorial to fallen soldiers breach the church-state wall?". The Economist. March 6, 2018. Retrieved March 2, 2019.
- Barnes, Robert; Marimow, Ann E. (2018-11-02). "Supreme Court will take case on constitutional challenge to Maryland's Peace Cross". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-02-27.
- Liptak, Adam (February 24, 2019). "40-Foot Cross Divides a Community and Prompts a Supreme Court Battle". The New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2019.