The American Legion versus The American Humanist Association case occurred between two public organizations. This case involves the American Humanist Association, a non-profit organization that advocates for the separation of church and state (American Humanist Association, n.d). Another participant in the proceedings is the American Legion, which provides community services to support veterans by promoting the values of patriotism and fellowship (Mission, n.d). In particular, “in 2014, the American Humanist Association brought suit against the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission” (AHLC | Cases | Bladensburg, n.d). The Supreme Court decision, in this case, was announced in 2019.
The claim was brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA) to the District Court, which argued that the installation of the cross violated the First Amendment to the Constitution. The defenders, in this case, were the American Legion, a public veterans support organization. In 2014, the District Court of Maryland decided that “the Cross satisfied both the Lemon test as set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 and the opinion of the Supreme Court in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677” (American Legion v. American Humanist Assn., n.d). In 2016, the organization filed a request for a rehearing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. However, the appeal was denied in view of the fact that, in the opinion of the Court, the cross had lost its religious meaning and was purely symbolic (United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2018). After that, the case was taken to the Supreme Court for review of decisions taken in the lower courts.
The issue presented in the case relates to a potential violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. In 1918, a committee was formed in Maryland that chose the plain Latin cross as a symbol of fallen soldiers in the First World War (Supreme Court of United States, 2018). The organization decided to establish this memorial in the area of the National Defense Highway connecting Washington to Annapolis. In 1925, when the committee ran out of financial resources, the American Legion took over the construction of the memorial (Supreme Court of United States, 2018). The Bladensburg Cross (Cross) has become a venue for various veteran support events. Gradually, infrastructure and public spaces began to develop around the memorial. In 2014, the American Humanist Association (AHA) stated that such a memorial in a public place violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
The Supreme Court has decided that the Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause. In particular, the Court explained that the cross, although in the past it had an exclusively religious meaning, is also secular at the present time. In particular, the cross is used as a memorial to soldiers and is not used for religious services (Supreme Court of United States, 2018). Thus, in its analysis using the Lemon test, the Court found that the monument has historical significance beyond religious symbolism.
As part of the opinion of the Court, Justice Ginsburg dissented, with whom Justice Sotomayor joined. Ginsburg emphasized that the Latin cross is a unified symbol of the Christian religious faith. In turn, the transformation of this symbol and its use for secular purposes does not exclude its religious meaning (American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S., 2019). Justice added that by placing a cross on the highway, “the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion” (American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S., 2019). The main argument, in this case, is the fact that the Latin cross around the world acts solely as a symbol of religious faith and does not carry any other meanings. Moreover, as a memorial symbol, the cross has been used to mark the death of Christians for many centuries up till now. Thus, the cross, as a symbol of remembrance, illustrates that the Christian faith will reward the soldier for valor. Additionally, the memorial’s dedication ceremony involved a Catholic and Baptist minister who made references to the faith, which emphasized the religious significance.
The main impact of this case is the need to consider the religious clauses together. In particular, the defense of the American Legion did not add the Free Exercise Clause to the interpretation of the Establishment Clause (First Amendment, 2019). The case identifies the practice of the Supreme Court to consider clauses separately from each other, which creates a precedent. The present case may thus identify the need to consider the related clauses together for a complete interpretation. If the defense of the American Legion were to propose the Free Exercise, it would undoubtedly lead to a change in the practice of First Amendment cases in the future. Moreover, this outcome would improve the procedure for interpreting religious clauses, which are often ambiguous. However, looking at the case in perspective will allow defenders to take this practice into account in the future in order to work more effectively in similar cases.
References
AHLC | Cases | Bladensburg. (n.d). American Humanist Association. Web.
American Humanist Association. (n.d). American Humanist Association. Web.
American Legion v. American Humanist Assn. (n.d). Global freedom of Expression: Columbia University. Web.
American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. (2019). Justia. Web.
First Amendment: American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n. (2019). Harvard Law Review. Web.
Mission. (n.d). The American Legion: Department of Idaho. Web.
Supreme Court of the United States. (2018). No. 17–1717. Web.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. (2018). No. 15-2597 (8:14-cv-00550-DKC). Web.