American Legion v. American Humanist Association

In 1925, a 40-foot Latin cross was erected in Bladensburg, Maryland, as a memorial to local soldiers who died in World War I. The cross stood on public land maintained by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The American Humanist Association and several residents filed suit, arguing that the government's display and maintenance of a religious symbol on public property violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the cross was unconstitutional. The American Legion appealed to the Supreme Court. On June 20, 2019, the Court reversed in a 7-2 decision, holding that the monument could remain. The majority found that the cross had acquired a largely secular historical meaning over time and that applying a stringent endorsement test to an old memorial would be inappropriate. The ruling emphasized that not all religious symbols on public land automatically violate the Constitution when they serve a commemorative purpose and reflect community heritage.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Bladensburg Peace Cross did not violate the Establishment Clause and could remain on public land. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, reasoning that the cross had taken on a secular commemorative meaning over decades and that the Lemon test was not the sole appropriate framework for evaluating such historic displays. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Whether the presence and government maintenance of a 40-foot Latin cross on public land as a war memorial constitutes an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, and which legal standard should govern the constitutionality of longstanding religious monuments.

The decision significantly strengthened legal protections for historic religious displays on public property and signaled a shift away from the strict Lemon test toward a history-and-tradition analysis in Establishment Clause cases. Religious liberty advocates praised the ruling as a victory for cultural heritage, while strict separationists warned it could erode the wall between church and state. The outcome is expected to influence numerous disputes over monuments, memorials, and symbols with religious elements nationwide.