Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 40

2 

AMERICAN LEGION  v. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSN. 

BREYER,  J., concurring 

ers of the Peace Cross acted with the undeniably secular 
motive of commemorating local soldiers; no evidence sug-
gests  that  they  sought  to disparage or exclude any reli-
gious group; the secular values inscribed on the Cross and 
its place among other memorials strengthen its message of 
patriotism and commemoration; and, finally, the Cross has 
stood on the same land for 94 years, generating no contro-
versy in the community until this lawsuit was filed.  Noth-
ing  in  the record suggests that the lack of public outcry 
“was  due  to  a  climate of intimidation.”  Van Orden, 545 
U. S.,  at  702  (BREYER,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).    In 
light  of  all these circumstances, the Peace Cross cannot 
reasonably be understood as “a government effort to favor 
a  particular  religious  sect”  or to “promote religion over 
nonreligion.”  Ibid.  And, as the Court explains, ordering 
its removal or alteration at this late date would signal “a 
hostility toward religion that has no place in our Estab-
lishment Clause traditions.”  Id., at 704.    
  The case would be different, in my view, if there were 
evidence that the organizers had “deliberately disrespected” 
members  of  minority  faiths  or  if  the  Cross  had  been 
erected  only  recently,  rather  than  in  the  aftermath  of 
World  War  I.    See  ante,  at  29;  see  also Van Orden, 545 
U. S.,  at  703  (opinion  of BREYER,  J.)  (explaining  that, in 
light  of  the  greater  religious  diversity  today,  “a  more 
contemporary state effort” to put up a religious display is 
“likely  to  prove  divisive  in  a  way  that [a] longstanding, 
pre-existing monument [would] not”).  But those are not 
the circumstances presented to us here, and I see no rea-
son  to  order this  cross  torn  down  simply  because other 
crosses would raise constitutional concerns.   
  Nor do I understand the Court’s opinion today to adopt a 
“history and tradition test” that would permit any newly 
constructed religious memorial on public land.  See post, 
at  1,  4  (KAV ANAUGH,  J.,  concurring);  cf.  post,  at  8−9 
(GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment).  The Court appro-