Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 76

10 

AMERICAN LEGION  v. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSN. 

GINSBURG,  J., dissenting 

  Every  Court  of  Appeals  to  confront  the  question  has 
held that “[m]aking a . . . Latin cross a war memorial does 
not make the cross secular,” it “makes the war memorial 
sectarian.”    Id., at  747.10  See also Separation of Church 
—————— 

ing”); Lemay, Politics in the Art of War: The American War Cemeteries, 
38 Int’l J. Mil. History & Historiography 223, 225 (2018) (“[T]he [cross] 
grave markers assert the absolute valour and Christ-like heroism of the 
American dead . . . .”). 

10 See  874  F. 3d  195,  207  (CA4 2017) (case below) (“Even in the me-
morial  context,  a  Latin  cross  serves  not  . . .  as  a  generic  symbol  of 
death,  but  rather  a  Christian  symbol  of  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ.”); 
American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F. 3d 1095, 1122 (CA10 2010) 
(“[A]  memorial  cross  is  not a generic symbol of death; it is a Christian 
symbol  of  death  that  signifies  or  memorializes  the  death  of  a  Chris-
tian.”);  Trunk  v.  San  Diego,  629 F. 3d 1099, 1102 (CA9 2011) (“Resur-
rection  of  this  Cross  as  a  war  memorial  does  not  transform  it  into  a 
secular  monument.”);  Separation  of  Church  and  State  Comm.  v.  Eu-
gene, 93 F. 3d 617, 619 (CA9 1996) (per curiam) (“[T]he City urges that 
the  cross  is  no  longer  a  religious  symbol  but  a  war  memorial.    This 
argument  . . .  fails  to  withstand  Establishment  Clause  analysis.”); 
Gonzales  v.  North  Twp.  of  Lake  Cty.,  4  F. 3d  1412,  1418  (CA7  1993) 
(“[W]e are masters of the obvious, and we know that . . . the Latin cross 
. . .  is  ‘[the]  unmistakable  symbol  of  Christianity  as  practiced  in  this 
country  today.’ ”  (quoting  Harris  v.  Zion,  927  F. 2d  1401,  1403  (CA7 
1991)).    See  also  Jewish  War  Veterans  of  the  United  States  v.  United 
States, 695 F. Supp. 3, 11 (DC 1988) (“[D]efendants are unable to cite a 
single  federal  case  where  a  cross  such  as  the  one  at  issue  here  has 
survived Establishment Clause scrutiny.”). 
  The Courts of Appeals have similarly concluded that the Latin cross 
remains  a  Christian  symbol  when  used  for  other  purposes.    See,  e.g., 
Robinson v. Edmond, 68 F. 3d 1226, 1232 (CA10 1995) (city seal depict-
ing  the  cross)  (“The  religious  significance  and meaning of the Latin or 
Christian  cross  are  unmistakable.”);  Carpenter  v.  City  and  County  of 
San  Francisco,  93  F. 3d  627,  630  (CA9  1996) (103-foot cross in public 
park)  (“The  Latin  cross  . . .  [‘]represents  with  relative  clarity  and 
simplicity  the  Christian  message  of the crucifixion and resurrection of 
Jesus Christ, a doctrine at the heart of Christianity.’ ”); American Civil 
Liberties Union of Ill. v. St. Charles, 794 F. 2d 265, 272–273 (CA7 1986) 
(35-foot cross displayed atop a fire house during the Christmas season) 
(“The  cross  . . .  is  ‘the  principal  symbol  of  the  Christian  religion,  re-
calling the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the redeeming benefits of his 
passion  and death.’ ”); Friedman v. Board of Cty. Comm’rs of Bernalillo