## Facts

- In 1918, residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, formed a committee to build a memorial to local soldiers who died in World War I.
- The committee chose a Latin cross design; the memorial was completed in 1925 with support from the American Legion after private fundraising was insufficient.
- The Bladensburg Peace Cross is a large cross on a pedestal with a plaque listing 49 local fallen soldiers’ names and displaying the American Legion emblem.
- The dedication included clergy participation, and the site later became a venue for Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and other patriotic observances; other war memorials were added nearby.
- In 1961, the Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission acquired the land and monument and used public funds for upkeep and repairs.
- The American Humanist Association and several residents sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that continued public display and maintenance of the cross violated the Establishment Clause and seeking removal, relocation, demolition, or alteration.

## Issues

1. Whether the display and public maintenance of a large Latin cross as a World War I memorial on public land violates the Establishment Clause.
2. What analytic framework governs passive displays incorporating religious symbolism, particularly longstanding monuments (including whether Lemon v. Kurtzman applies).
3. Whether government expenditures to maintain such a memorial constitute excessive entanglement with religion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held, 7–2, that the Bladensburg Peace Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.
- The Court declined to apply the Lemon framework to this context and treated it as ill-suited for evaluating longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices.
- The Court recognized a strong presumption of constitutionality for longstanding monuments with religious associations, assessed in light of history and tradition.
- The Court concluded that the memorial’s commemorative purpose and its developed civic meaning, along with the absence of discriminatory intent, supported constitutionality.
- The Court rejected the argument that routine public maintenance spending amounted to unconstitutional entanglement.
- The case was remanded consistent with the judgment upholding the memorial.

## Legal Principles

- Longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices with religious associations are generally entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality, particularly where their historical and commemorative roles have become established over time.
- Establishment Clause analysis for passive, longstanding religiously expressive monuments may be guided more by history and tradition than by Lemon’s purpose/effect/entanglement factors.
- In evaluating such monuments, relevant considerations include the monument’s commemorative purpose, the evolution of its message and community meaning, the absence of discriminatory intent, and the risk that removal would be perceived as governmental hostility toward religion.
- Government expenditures for ordinary upkeep of a historic memorial with religious imagery do not, without more, constitute excessive entanglement with religion.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld a decades-old war memorial in the form of a Latin cross on public land, concluding that longstanding religiously associated monuments with established historical and commemorative functions are presumptively constitutional and are better assessed through historical practice and context than through Lemon.


Am. Legion v. Am. Hum. Ass’n, 588 U.S. 29 (2019)