Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

BREYER,  J., concurring 

priately “looks to history for guidance,” ante, at 25 (plural-
ity  opinion),  but  it  upholds  the  constitutionality  of  the 
Peace Cross only after considering its particular historical 
context and its long-held place in the community, see ante, 
at 28−30 (majority opinion).  A newer memorial, erected 
under different circumstances, would not necessarily be 
permissible under this approach.  Cf. ante, at 21.  
  As  I have previously explained, “where the Establish-
ment  Clause  is  at  issue,”  the  Court  must  “ ‘distinguish 
between real threat and mere shadow.’ ”  Van Orden, 545 
U. S.,  at  704  (opinion  concurring  in  judgment)  (quoting 
School  Dist.  of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 
203, 308 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring)).  In light of all 
the  circumstances  here, I agree with the Court that the 
Peace  Cross  poses  no  real  threat  to the values that the 
Establishment Clause serves.