Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 83.0

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

17 

GINSBURG,  J., dissenting 

of those faith and beliefs.16 
  Recognizing  that  a  Latin  cross  does  not  belong  on  a 
public highway or building does not mean the monument 
must be “torn down.”  Ante, at 2 (BREYER, J., concurring); 
ante,  at  1  (GORSUCH,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).17  
“[L]ike  the  determination  of  the  violation  itself,”  the 
“proper remedy . . . is necessarily context specific.”  Buono, 
559 U. S., at 755, n. 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting).  In some 
instances,  the  violation  may  be  cured  by  relocating  the 
monument to private land or by transferring ownership of 
the land and monument to a private party. 

* 

  * 

  * 

  In 1790, President Washington visited Newport, Rhode 
Island,  “a  longtime  bastion  of  religious  liberty  and  the 
home of one of the first communities of American Jews.”  
Town  of  Greece  v.  Galloway,  572  U. S.  565,  636  (2014) 
(KAGAN, J., dissenting).  In a letter thanking the congrega-
tion  for  its  warm  welcome,  Washington  praised  “[t]he 
citizens of the United States of America” for “giv[ing] to 
mankind  . . .  a  policy  worthy  of  imitation”:  “All  possess 
alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.”  
Letter to Newport Hebrew Congregation (Aug. 18, 1790), 
in 6 Papers of George Washington 284, 285 (D. Twohig ed. 
1996).    As  Washington  and  his  contemporaries  were 

—————— 

16 As to the Argonne Cross Memorial and the Canadian Cross of Sac-
rifice in Arlington National Cemetery, visitors to the cemetery “expec[t] 
to  view  religious  symbols,  whether  on  individual  headstones  or  as 
standalone monuments.”  Brief for Amicus  Jewish War V eterans 17. 

17 The Court asserts that the Court of Appeals “entertained” the pos-
sibility of “amputating the arms of the cross.”  Ante, at 24.  The appeals 
court,  however,  merely  reported  Plaintiffs’  “desired  injunctive  relief,” 
namely,  “removal  or  demolition  of  the  Cross,  or  removal  of  the  arms 
from  the  Cross ‘to form a non-religious slab or obelisk.’ ”  874 F. 3d, at 
202,  n. 7.    See also id., at 212, n. 19 (noting that the parties remained 
“free  to  explore  alternative  arrangements  that  would  not  offend  the 
Constitution”).