Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2 

AMERICAN LEGION  v. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSN. 

Syllabus 

the American Legion reserved the right to continue using the site for 
ceremonies.  The Commission has used public funds to maintain the 
monument ever since. 
  In  2014,  the  American  Humanist  Association  (AHA)  and  others 
filed suit in District Court, alleging that the Cross’s presence on pub-
lic  land  and  the  Commission’s maintenance of the memorial violate 
the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.  The American Legion 
intervened to defend the Cross.  The District Court granted summary 
judgment  for  the  Commission  and  the  American  Legion,  concluding 
that  the  Cross  satisfies  both  the test announced in Lemon v. Kurtz-
man,  403  U. S.  602,  and  the  analysis  applied by JUSTICE BREYER in 
upholding  a  Ten  Commandments  monument  in  Van  Orden  v. Perry, 
545 U. S. 677.  The Fourth Circuit reversed.  

Held: The judgment is reversed and remanded. 

874 F. 3d 195, reversed and remanded. 

  JUSTICE  ALITO  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court  with  respect  to 
Parts  I,  II–B,  II–C,  III,  and  IV ,  concluding  that  the  Bladensburg 
Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.  Pp. 16–24, 28–31. 
(a) At least four considerations show that retaining established, re-
ligiously  expressive  monuments,  symbols, and practices is quite dif-
ferent  from  erecting  or  adopting  new  ones.    First,  these  cases  often 
concern monuments, symbols, or practices that were first established 
long  ago,  and  thus,  identifying  their  original  purpose  or  purposes 
may  be  especially  difficult.    See  Salazar  v.  Buono,  559  U. S.  700.  
Second, as time goes by, the purposes associated with an established 
monument,  symbol,  or  practice  often  multiply,  as  in  the  Ten  Com-
mandments  monuments  addressed  in  Van  Orden  and  McCreary 
County  v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U. S. 844.  Even 
if  the  monument’s  original  purpose  was  infused  with  religion,  the 
passage of time may obscure that sentiment and the monument may 
be retained for the sake of its historical significance or its place in a 
common  cultural heritage.  Third, the message of a monument, sym-
bol,  or  practice  may  evolve,  Pleasant  Grove  City  v.  Summum,  555 
U. S. 460, 477, as is the case with a city name like Bethlehem, Penn-
sylvania;  Arizona’s  motto  “Ditat  Deus”  (“God  enriches”),  adopted  in 
1864; or Maryland’s flag, which has included two crosses since 1904.  
Familiarity  itself  can  become  a  reason  for  preservation.    Fourth, 
when  time’s  passage  imbues  a  religiously  expressive  monument, 
symbol, or practice with this kind of familiarity and historical signifi-
cance, removing it may no longer appear neutral, especially to the lo-
cal  community.    The passage of time thus gives rise to a strong pre-
sumption of constitutionality.  Pp. 16–21. 

(b) The cross is a symbol closely linked to World War I.  The United 
States adopted it as part of its military honors, establishing the Dis-