The Peace Cross Case: Has The Court Soured on Lemon?
Contents © 2012-2017. Edward F. Mannino. All rights reserved.
In The American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n , Nos. 17-1717, 18-18, argued February 27, 2019, the Supreme Court will decide whether the “Peace Cross” erected in 1925 in Bladensburg, Maryland, as a memorial to 49 soldiers who died in World War I violates the Establishment Clause. The cross is 40 feet tall, is made of stone and concrete, and was erected at a busy intersection. At its base, the words “Valor, Endurance, Courage, Devotion” appear on its four sides, with no religious language on any portion of the monument. At its center, the monument has a large American Legion symbol, identifying the monument’s sponsor.
In the Fourth Circuit decision below, the Court of Appeals found a violation of the Establishment Clause based upon the highly-critized three-part test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). That test inquires if legislation or state-sponsored activity (1) has a secular purpose, (2) whether its primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion, and (3) whether there is “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” The Fourth Circuit found that the average person would believe that the Peace Cross endorses the Christian religion, and thus violates the Establishment Clause.
Based on the oral argument in the Supreme Court, it appears that the likely result will be that the cross is found not to violate the Establishment Clause because it is a 93-year-old war memorial which was erected at a time when there was not as much religious diversity as there is today.
While the Lemon case may not be the basis for the ultimate decision, it nevertheless received significant attention, particularly from the court’s newest members. Justice Gorsuch twice referred to the Lemon tests as a “dog’s breakfast,” and noted that it had been a long time since the court applied it, leading to what he termed “a welter of confusion.” He then asked “Is it time for this court to thank Lemon for its services and send it on its way?”
Justice Gorsuch added that a majority of the justices, at different times, have “advocated for Lemon’s dismissal.” Indeed, Justice Scalia was a long time opponent of the Lemon test. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) (arguing that abandoning Lemon would be “a good place to start” to get “clarity and predictability”); Lee v. Weisman (1992) (contending that the failure to rely on Lemon represented “the internment of that case” and “the one happy byproduct of the Court’s otherwise lamentable decision.”)
Justice Kavanaugh also criticized Lemon at the Peace Cross argument, noting that the lower courts needed clarity in this area. He questioned the American Humanist Association lawyer who argued that the Lemon precedent was useful, stating “How could it be useful when we haven’t used it in the most important cases that are on point here? ”
While Neal Katyal, who argued for the American Legion, lectured Justice Gorsuch that, if he was concerned about Lemon , this was not the proper case to rule on its continuing viability, Justice Kavanaugh later questioned “What if we think it’s unconstitutional under Lemon? What is your view then?” Katyal replied that, in that case,”you should take a look at Lemon because then it would be necessarily presented.” That response was met with laughter in the court.
Given the many comments by several justices suggesting that the case could be decided on the basis of upholding historic monumental use of crosses, and considering Chief Justice Roberts’ favoring of narrow decisions avoiding constitutional rulings, this may not be the case where Lemon finally, in the word of Justice Scalia, is given its “internment.” Nevertheless, given the critical comments made by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, I would not be surprised to see a concurring opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, and joined by Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas, and perhaps even by Justice Alito, calling for Lemon to be overruled.
Comments are closed.
Search for:
Recent Posts The Peace Cross Case: Has The Court Soured on Lemon? Governor Northam and the Democrats’ Double Standard Can Antitrust Control Amazon, Facebook, and Google? John of Capistrano: Lawyer, Governor, Warrior Priest Charles Borromeo: Catholic Reformer
The Peace Cross Case: Has The Court Soured on Lemon?
Governor Northam and the Democrats’ Double Standard
Can Antitrust Control Amazon, Facebook, and Google?
John of Capistrano: Lawyer, Governor, Warrior Priest
Charles Borromeo: Catholic Reformer
Recent Comments Ed Mannino on Hobby Lobby: A Critical But Limited Ruling For Corporate Religious Exercise Claims P. C. Outsider on Hobby Lobby: A Critical But Limited Ruling For Corporate Religious Exercise Claims Rand Scholet on Alexander Hamilton and American Business ny ipad on Fisher v. University of Texas: Affirmative Action for Well-to-Do Minorities? Ed Mannino on Tips From John G. Johnson, Philadelphia’s Greatest Lawyer
Ed Mannino on Hobby Lobby: A Critical But Limited Ruling For Corporate Religious Exercise Claims
P. C. Outsider on Hobby Lobby: A Critical But Limited Ruling For Corporate Religious Exercise Claims
Rand Scholet on Alexander Hamilton and American Business
ny ipad on Fisher v. University of Texas: Affirmative Action for Well-to-Do Minorities?
Ed Mannino on Tips From John G. Johnson, Philadelphia’s Greatest Lawyer
Archives March 2019 February 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 June 2017 March 2017 February 2017 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 November 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012
March 2019
February 2019
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
June 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
Categories American Actors american business American History American Judges American Lawyers American Literature American Politics Antitrust Litigation Art Business Litigation Catholicism Civil Rights Litigation constitutional litigation Criminal Law Economics Ethics Fiction Health Lawyer-Saints Literary Criticism Literary Lawyers Litigation Tips New Mexico History Patent Litigation Philosophy Politics Products Liability Litigation Religion Securities Litigation Supreme Court Uncategorized United States Constitution
American Actors
american business
American History
American Judges
American Lawyers
American Literature
American Politics
Antitrust Litigation
Art
Business Litigation
Catholicism
Civil Rights Litigation
constitutional litigation
Criminal Law
Economics
Ethics
Fiction
Health
Lawyer-Saints
Literary Criticism
Literary Lawyers
Litigation Tips
New Mexico History
Patent Litigation
Philosophy
Politics
Products Liability Litigation
Religion
Securities Litigation
Supreme Court
Uncategorized
United States Constitution