Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 42

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, 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 KAVANAUGH, concurring. 
  I  join  the  Court’s  eloquent  and  persuasive  opinion  in 
full.  I write separately to emphasize two points. 

I 
  Consistent  with  the  Court’s  case  law,  the  Court  today 
applies  a  history  and  tradition  test  in  examining  and 
upholding  the  constitutionality  of  the  Bladensburg  Cross.  
See  Marsh  v.  Chambers,  463  U. S.  783,  787–792,  795 
(1983); Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. 677, 686–690 (2005) 
(plurality opinion); Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. 
565, 575–578 (2014). 
  As  this  case  again  demonstrates,  this  Court  no  longer 
applies the old test articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 
U. S. 602 (1971).  The Lemon test examined, among other 
things,  whether  the  challenged  government  action  had  a 
primary  effect  of  advancing  or  endorsing  religion.    If 
Lemon  guided  this  Court’s  understanding  of  the  Estab-
lishment Clause, then many of the Court’s Establishment