Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

1 

BREYER,  J., concurring 

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  BREYER,  with  whom  JUSTICE  KAGAN  joins, 
concurring. 
  I have long maintained that there is no single formula 
for resolving Establishment Clause challenges.  See Van 
Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 698 (2005) (opinion concur-
ring in judgment).  The Court must instead consider each 
case  in  light  of  the  basic  purposes  that  the  Religion 
Clauses were meant to serve: assuring religious liberty and 
tolerance for all, avoiding religiously based social conflict, 
and maintaining that separation of church and state that 
allows each to flourish in its “separate spher[e].”  Ibid.; see 
also  Zelman  v.  Simmons-Harris,  536  U. S.  639,  717−723 
(2002) (BREYER, J., dissenting).   
  I agree with the Court that allowing the State of Mary-
land  to  display  and  maintain  the  Peace  Cross  poses  no 
threat  to  those  ends.    The  Court’s  opinion  eloquently 
explains why that is so: The Latin cross is uniquely asso-
ciated with the fallen soldiers of World War I; the organiz-