American Legion v. American Humanist Association

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2019 United States Supreme Court case

American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. 29 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case 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 was 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 challenged 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 Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling in a 7–2 decision, determining that since the Cross had stood for decades without controversy, it did not violate the Establishment Clause and could remain standing.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Legion_v._American_Humanist_Association&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

The Peace Cross

The 40 feet (12 m)-tall Peace Cross 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 to mirror the gravemarkers that were left in the war theaters to commemorate the dead buried there. 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 park land owned by the state. 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.

The American Humanist Association appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit . In October 2017, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court, with Judge Stephanie Thacker 's opinion joined by Judge James A. Wynn Jr.

Chief Judge Roger Gregory dissented. The majority found 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 majority held 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".

In March 2018, the full circuit denied petitions for rehearing _en banc _ by a vote of 8–6, with Wynn authoring a concurrence. Gregory, who dissented again, 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. Judges Paul V. Niemeyer and J. Harvie Wilkinson III also wrote dissents.

Supreme Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Legion_v._American_Humanist_Association&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Supreme Court")
]

Both the Planning Commission and the American Legion petitioned for writs of _certiorari _ from the Supreme Court, asking it 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 they should be considered, 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.

On February 27, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments , including appearances from Neal Katyal for the state petitioner and acting Solicitor General Jeffery Wall for the Federal Government as a friend of the petitioners, and Monica Miller for the respondents. 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.

Opinion of the Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Legion_v._American_Humanist_Association&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")
]

[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

…