Introduction

American Legion v. American Humanist Association is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, delivered on June 20, 2019. The case centered around the constitutional validity of the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a 32-foot tall Latin cross erected in 1925 in Bladensburg, Maryland, to honor 49 local soldiers who died in World War I.

The American Humanist Association (AHA) challenged the Cross’s presence on public land, arguing that its existence on land maintained by a government entity violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. The key issues revolved around whether the longstanding religious symbol in a public space constituted governmental endorsement of religion, and thus, violated constitutional principles of separation of church and state.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that the Bladensburg Peace Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. The Court emphasized that the passage of time and the monument's longstanding presence contribute to a presumption of constitutionality.

The majority acknowledged the cross as a Christian symbol but concluded that its use as a war memorial over time has imbued it with secular significance, representing the community's gratitude and honoring all veterans regardless of faith. The Court noted the historical context of the monument's erection and maintenance, its role in community events, and the absence of discriminatory intent or effect.

Additionally, the Court addressed the limitations of the LEMON v. KURTZMAN test, stating that it is no longer the guiding framework for Establishment Clause cases. Instead, the Court advocated for a historical and tradition-based approach, assessing each case based on its unique context.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several key precedents:

• LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971): Established a three-pronged test to evaluate Establishment Clause cases, focusing on secular purpose, primary effect, and excessive government entanglement with religion.
• VAN ORDEN v. PERRY, 545 U.S. 677 (2005): Upheld the display of Ten Commandments monuments in Texas, highlighting that longstanding monuments with historical significance do not necessarily violate the Establishment Clause.
• Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010): Dealt with a cross memorial in Utah, where the Court found no Establishment Clause violation due to the monument’s commemorative purpose and historical context.
• Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014): Upheld legislative prayer sessions, emphasizing historical practices and inclusivity in governmental religious displays.

The Court underscored that these cases illustrate the limitations of the Lemon test and support a more nuanced, context-driven analysis.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning hinged on the distinction between establishing new religious symbols and retaining existing ones. Four main considerations were highlighted:

1. Age and Establishment: Older monuments often have enduring significance that transcends their original religious intent, making their removal non-neutral.
2. Multipurpose Significance: Over time, the meanings associated with such symbols can evolve, encompassing both religious and secular interpretations.
3. Community Familiarity: The established presence of a monument fosters communal consensus and historical preservation, reducing perceptions of governmental endorsement.
4. Potential for Perceived Hostility: Removing long-standing symbols can be seen as an act of hostility towards religion, conflicting with constitutional ideals of tolerance and respect.

The majority opinion stressed that the Bladensburg Peace Cross, while Christian in origin, serves a broader commemorative function, honoring all veterans and becoming ingrained in the community’s cultural landscape.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future Establishment Clause cases involving religious symbols on public land. It establishes a clear precedent that:

• Longstanding religious monuments are presumptively constitutional if they have acquired secular significance over time.
• Courts should adopt a historical and tradition-based approach rather than rigidly applying the Lemon test.
• The decision limits the ability of individuals or groups to seek the removal of historical religious symbols solely based on offense or disagreement.

Moreover, the ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution based on evolving societal contexts and historical continuity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association reinforces the principle that historical and longstanding religious symbols on public land are constitutionally permissible when they have acquired broader societal significance. By shifting away from the rigid Lemon test towards a more historical and contextual analysis, the Court ensures that the Establishment Clause accommodates the evolving interpretations of religious symbols within the cultural landscape.

This judgment balances the constitutional mandate for religious neutrality with the practical realities of memorializing a shared history, thereby upholding both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.