L ast week, the Supreme Court decided the much-awaited Bladensburg Cross case, American Legion v. American Humanist Association.. The 40-foot tall memorial became known as the "Peace Cross." Bladensburg’s beloved Peace Cross can remain, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, saying the memorial to soldiers killed in World War I has been consecrated by nearly 100 years of public devotion — and that tearing it down would show unconstitutional “hostility” to religion.In a 7-2 ruling, the court blessed the cross, saying it has earned “special significance” over the years as a war memorial and expression of a community’s grief for its lost sons.He suggested that there should be “a presumption of constitutionality for long-standing monuments” on public grounds.“Just because something is a tradition doesn’t make it right,” said Rachel Laser, the group’s president.“The Religion Clauses of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim,” he wrote.It remains to be seen what the effect of the ruling has on hundreds of other cross-style memorials on public lands across the country.The 40-foot Latin cross, which stands on public park land at a major intersection in Prince George’s County outside Washington, had become a test of religious freedom, with those on both sides of the church-state divide wondering what the justices would do.“In the face of today’s decision, we must all pursue new avenues to bolster the First Amendment,” said Roy Speckhardt, the group’s executive director.In their dissent, they said the Peace Cross is impossible to view as anything other than the chief symbol of Christianity and leaving it on public land “elevates” that religion above all others.“The days of illegitimately weaponizing the Establishment Clause and attacking religious symbols in public are over,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty, which helped defend the cross on behalf of the American Legion.“This is a big win for our community and this nation,” said Elizabeth M. Hewlett, chairwoman of the commission and the Prince George’s County Planning Board.But the justices were unable to come to any consensus about how to approach hundreds of other religion-themed memorials across the country, leaving them to be fought over one by one.The cross was erected by the American Legion, and the design was chosen to mirror the crosses that stood on the graves of the troops who died during the Great War. In The American Legion v American Humanist Association, 588 U. S. ____ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.While seven justices agreed with the Court’s judgment, only four joined the lead opinion, with many justices diverging on the continued relevance of the test set forth in Lemon v. A local post of The American Legion erected the Bladensburg Peace Cross in 1925. Back in 1925, the American Legion erected a memorial in Bladensburg, Md., to honor the memory of 49 men who perished during World War I.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs and declared the cross unconstitutional.“This is a landmark victory for religious freedom," said Kelly Shackelford, President, CEO, and Chief Counsel to First Liberty.
That the cross originated as a Christian symbol and retains that ... Cross and the American Legion with anti-Semitism and the Ku Klux Klan, but the monument, which was dedicated during a period of
The names of 49 soldiers are engraved at the base of the cross.Religious liberty advocates called the high court’s decision a landmark.The ruling was the latest blow to the “Lemon test,” the Supreme Court’s 1971 framework for deciding religion-state entanglements that required the courts to look at whether a government action advanced or endorsed religion.Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote his own opinion disagreeing.“It’s hard not to wonder: How old must a monument, symbol, or practice be to qualify for this new presumption?