The case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association

Sample Solution

   

American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)

Background

The American Legion is a veterans organization that owns and maintains a 40-foot-tall Latin cross known as the Bladensburg Cross. The cross was erected in 1925 to honor the 49 Prince George's County, Maryland, soldiers who died in World War I. The cross stands in a public park that is owned by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC).

Full Answer Section

      In 2014, the American Humanist Association (AHA) and two individuals filed a lawsuit against the M-NCPPC, alleging that the Bladensburg Cross violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion or endorsing one religion over another. Lower Court Proceedings The district court granted summary judgment to the M-NCPPC and the American Legion, concluding that the Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause. The court found that the cross has a secular purpose, that it does not advance or inhibit religion, and that it does not have a primary effect of endorsing religion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision. The Fourth Circuit found that the Bladensburg Cross has a primary effect of endorsing religion and that it violates the Establishment Clause. Supreme Court Decision The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision and upheld the constitutionality of the Bladensburg Cross. The Court held that the cross has a dual purpose, both secular and religious. The Court reasoned that the cross was originally erected as a war memorial, but that it has also acquired a secular meaning over time. The Court also found that the cross does not have a primary effect of endorsing religion. The Court reasoned that the cross is located in a public park where other monuments, including a monument to veterans of World War II, are also located. Dissenting Opinion Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. The dissenters argued that the Bladensburg Cross has a primary effect of endorsing religion and that it violates the Establishment Clause. The dissenters reasoned that the cross is a dominant symbol of Christianity and that its presence in a public park sends a message to the public that the government endorses Christianity over other religions. Conclusion The Supreme Court's decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association is a significant victory for religious liberty. The Court's decision affirms that the government can display religious symbols on public property when those symbols have a secular purpose as well as a religious purpose. Implications The Supreme Court's decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association could have implications for other cases involving the display of religious symbols on public property. For example, the decision could embolden religious groups to challenge laws that prohibit the display of religious symbols on public property. Additionally, the decision could make it more difficult for individuals to challenge the display of religious symbols on public property, even if those symbols have a primary effect of endorsing religion. Criticism of the Decision Some critics have argued that the Supreme Court's decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association is a setback for the separation of church and state. The critics argue that the decision allows the government to endorse Christianity over other religions and that it sends a message to the public that the government is not neutral on matters of religion. Defense of the Decision Defenders of the Supreme Court's decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association argue that the decision is consistent with the Establishment Clause. The defenders argue that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit the government from displaying religious symbols on public property, as long as those symbols have a secular purpose. Additionally, the defenders argue that the decision is necessary to protect religious freedom. Conclusion The Supreme Court's decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association is a significant case that has implications for the display of religious symbols on public property. The decision is likely to be debated for years to come.