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

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of the Court 

constitutional  under  JUSTICE  BREYER’s  approach  in  Van 
Orden.  147 F. Supp. 3d, at 388–390. 
  A  divided  panel  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Fourth 
Circuit  reversed.    The  majority  relied  primarily  on  the 
Lemon  test  but  also  took  cognizance  of  JUSTICE  BREYER’s 
Van  Orden  concurrence.    While  recognizing  that  the 
Commission  acted  for  a  secular  purpose,  the  court  held 
that the Bladensburg Cross failed Lemon’s “effects” prong 
because  a  reasonable  observer  would  view  the  Commis-
sion’s ownership and maintenance of the monument as an 
endorsement  of  Christianity.    The  court  emphasized  the 
cross’s  “inherent  religious  meaning”  as  the  “ ‘preeminent 
symbol of Christianity.’ ”  874 F. 3d, at 206–207.  Although 
conceding  that  the  monument  had  several  “secular  ele-
ments,”  the  court  asserted  that  they  were  “overshad-
ow[ed]”  by  the  Cross’s  size  and  Christian  connection—
especially  because  the  Cross’s  location  and  condition 
would make it difficult for “passers-by” to “read” or other-
wise “examine” the plaque and American Legion emblem.  
Id.,  at  209–210.    The  court  rejected  as  “too  simplistic”  an 
argument dppefending the Cross’s constitutionality on the 
basis of its 90-year history, suggesting that “[p]erhaps the 
longer a violation persists, the greater the affront to those 
offended.”    Id.,  at  208.    In  the  alternative,  the  court  con-
cluded, the Commission had become excessively entangled 
with  religion  by  keeping  a  display  that  “aggrandizes  the 
Latin cross” and by spending more than de minimis public 
funds to maintain it.  Id., at 211–212. 
  Chief  Judge  Gregory  dissented  in  relevant  part,  con-
tending  that  the  majority  misapplied  the  “effects”  test  by 
failing to give adequate consideration to the Cross’s “phys-
ical setting, history, and usage.”  Id., at 218 (opinion con-
curring in part and dissenting in part).  He also disputed 
the  majority’s  excessive-entanglement  analysis,  noting 
that  the  Commission’s  maintenance  of  the  Cross  was  not 
the  kind  of  “comprehensive,  discriminating,  and  continu-
ing  state  surveillance”  of  religion  that  Lemon  was  con-