Dissenting Opinion in Supreme Court Case Proclaims that a 40-foot Cross is a Religious Symbol
- Robert Perrell
- Jul 20, 2019
- 3 min read
Updated: Aug 20, 2019
By Robert Perrell
On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court finally made a ruling in a case involving a 40-foot Latin Cross that resides on state owned property in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The monument, which is considered a World War I memorial, had come under scrutiny by local residents as a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The American Humanist Association (AHA) filed a suit in 2014 urging that the either the land to be re-appropriated to private property or for the ‘Peace Cross’, as it has been called, to be removed.
After winning their lawsuit at the Fourth Circuit Courts, the AHA found themselves in Supreme Court in 2018 with the final ruling occurring last month.
Despite the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision to reverse the Fourth Circuit Court ruling, the opinion varied among several justices and included concurring opinions from Justice Breyer, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Kagan, Justice Thomas, and Justice Gorsuch. According to official court documents, the dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg established that the cross was, in fact, a religious symbol and, in her opinion, did violate the establishment clause.
Justice Ginsburg wrote, “The principal symbol of Christianity around the world should not loom over public thoroughfares, suggesting official recognition of that religion’s paramountcy.”
This was similar to the arguments made by the AHA, despite the rejections by the court, including Justice Alito who wrote, “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.”
One of Justice Alito’s main arguments against the violation of the Establishment Clause was simply the age of the cross itself. According to the petition for a writ of certiorari, which was filed on June 29, 2018, the cross was erected in 1925, at the time, by the American Legion, however, in 1961 the State of Maryland acquired the land and the memorial. Since that time, the cross has been maintained by tax payer money and as the AHA claims, endorses a particular religion, something the Establishment Clause of the constitution prohibits.
Aside from Alito’s main opinion, five other justices included concurring opinions about the decision. Each one, seen in the graphic provided, saw the case a bit differently and had their own unique interpretation of the constitutional merits. Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan went along with the historicity argument and agreed with the idea that the cross itself being a ‘secular’ memorial to the World War I veterans. Justice Kavanaugh felt that a violation of the Establishment Clause required coercion while Justice Thomas felt that the 1st Amendment only applied to federal laws enacted by Congress and should not include physical monuments.
Justice Gorsuch felt that the age of the monument should not be a factor and that the case should have been dismissed altogether by the Supreme Court. He based this opinion on the fact ‘offended observers’ to the cross had no merit or basis in law.
“If individuals and groups could invoke the authority of a federal court to forbid what they dislike for no more reason than they dislike it, we would risk exceeding the judiciary’s limited constitutional mandate and infringing on powers committed to other branches of government,” said Gorsuch.
Justice Ginsburg’s dissention attacked this idea, stating that religious symbols displayed in public arenas ‘conveys a message of exclusion’. In her opinion, she believes the cross absolutely endorses Christianity and even dishonors veterans who served during World War I who were of other faiths or no faith at all.
“Just as a Star of David is not suitable to honor Christians who died serving their country, so a cross is not suitable to honor those of other faiths who died defending their nation,” Justice Ginsburg wrote.
The ruling could create new problems for the AHA, who currently has other cases involving similar monuments, most notably in Pensacola, Florida where a 34-foot cross is displayed in a city park. Similar to the Maryland Cross, the AHA has already won a victory in Florida, however, it could follow the same path to the Supreme Court. Lead counsel for the AHA, Monica Miller, appeared on the Thinking Atheist Podcast on July 2, 2019, and had this to say about how the Supreme Court’s decision could affect future lawsuits.
“We were expecting a loss but were hoping for a narrow, fragmented ruling that will be very difficult to apply for future cases, and I believe we got that, so it’s a small victory in a big loss kind of thing.”
For more information about the American Humanist Association visit https://americanhumanist.org. And for more news and information about the secular community follow @SecularShepherd on Twitter.
Comments