Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 47.0

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

1 

KAGAN, J., concurring 
KAGAN, J., concurring in part 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 17–1717 and 18–18 
_________________ 

17–1717 

THE AMERICAN LEGION, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, ET AL.; AND 

MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND 
PLANNING COMMISSION, PETITIONER 
v. 
AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, ET AL. 

18–18 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

[June 20, 2019] 

  JUSTICE KAGAN, concurring in part. 
  I  fully  agree  with  the  Court’s  reasons  for  allowing  the 
Bladensburg  Peace  Cross  to  remain  as  it  is,  and  so  join 
Parts  I,  II–B,  II–C,  III,  and  IV  of  its  opinion,  as  well  as 
JUSTICE  BREYER’s  concurrence.    Although  I  agree  that 
rigid  application  of  the  Lemon  test  does  not  solve  every 
Establishment Clause problem, I think that test’s focus on 
purposes  and  effects  is  crucial  in  evaluating  government 
action in this sphere—as this very suit shows.  I therefore 
do  not  join  Part  II–A.    I  do  not  join  Part  II–D  out  of  per-
haps an excess of caution.  Although I too “look[ ] to history 
for  guidance,”  ante,  at  25  (plurality  opinion),  I  prefer  at 
least for now to do so case-by-case, rather than to sign on 
to  any  broader  statements  about  history’s  role  in  Estab-
lishment  Clause  analysis.    But  I  find  much  to  admire  in 
this  section  of  the  opinion—particularly,  its  emphasis  on 
whether longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices 
reflect “respect and tolerance for differing views, an honest