Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 68

2 

AMERICAN LEGION  v. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSN. 

GINSBURG,  J., dissenting 

  Decades ago, this Court recognized that the Establish-
ment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution 
demands governmental neutrality among religious faiths, 
and  between  religion  and  nonreligion.    See  Everson  v. 
Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 15 (1947).  Numerous 
times since, the Court has reaffirmed the Constitution’s 
commitment to neutrality.  Today the Court erodes that 
neutrality commitment, diminishing precedent designed to 
preserve individual liberty and civic harmony in favor of a 
“presumption of constitutionality for longstanding monu-
ments,  symbols,  and  practices.”    Ante,  at  16  (plurality 
opinion).2 
  The Latin cross is the foremost symbol of the Christian 
faith, embodying the “central theological claim of Christi-
anity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose 
from the dead, and that his death and resurrection offer 
the  possibility  of  eternal  life.”    Brief  for  Baptist  Joint 
Committee for Religious Liberty et al. as Amici Curiae 7 
(Brief  for  Amici  Christian  and  Jewish  Organizations).  
Precisely  because  the  cross  symbolizes  these  sectarian 
beliefs, it is a common marker for the graves of Christian 
soldiers.    For the same reason, using the cross as a war 
memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol, as 
the  Courts  of  Appeals  have  uniformly  recognized.    See 

—————— 

2 Some  of  my  colleagues  suggest  that  the  Court’s  new  presumption 
extends  to  all governmental displays and practices, regardless of their 
age.    See  ante,  at  3  (KAVANAUGH,  J.,  concurring); ante, at 6 (THOMAS,  J., 
concurring  in  judgment);  ante,  at  9  (GORSUCH,  J.,  concurring  in  judg-
ment).    But  see  ante,  at  2  (BREYER,  J.,  joined by KAGAN, J., concurring) 
(“ ‘[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.’ ”).    I  read  the Court’s opinion to mean what it 
says:  “[R]etaining  established,  religiously  expressive  monuments, 
symbols, and practices is quite different from erecting or adopting new 
ones,”  ante,  at  21,  and,  consequently,  only  “longstanding  monuments, 
symbols,  and  practices” enjoy “a presumption of constitutionality,” id., 
at 16 (plurality opinion).