Supreme Court Says 40-Foot-Tall Cross on Public Land in Maryland Can Stay

June 21, 2019 by Dan McCue
The World War I memorial cross at 4500 Annapolis Road in Bladensburg, Md. The Bladensburg Peace Cross, as the local landmark is known, was dedicated in 1925 as a memorial to Prince George County's World War I dead. (Algerina Perna/Baltimore Sun/TNS)

WASHINGTON – A large, cross-shaped memorial to the dead of World War I that has stood in the grassy median of a local roadway for nearly a century, can stay right where it is, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Writing for the majority in the 7-2 ruling, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. said that while “the cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol … that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent.”

“For some, that monument is a symbolic resting place for ancestors who never returned home,” Alito continued. “For others, it is a place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices to our nation. For others still, it is a historical landmark.

“For many of these people, destroying or defacing the cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment. For all these reasons, the Cross does not offend the Constitution,” the justice wrote.

The ruling is significant because of what it says about the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others. In this case, the majority appears to be saying that the establishment clause is not necessarily a bright line rule.

The American Legion and others who fought to keep the cross in Bladensburg, a suburb of Washington, D.C., argued that if the high court ordered it removed, the ruling would have a domino effect, causing scores of war memorials to be taken down across the country.

Their opponents, which included three area residents and the District of Columbia-based American Humanist Association, argued the cross should be moved to private property or modified into a nonreligious monument such as a slab or obelisk.

Two of the court’s liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined their conservative colleagues in ruling for the cross. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

In her dissent, Ginsburg wrote “the principal symbol of Christianity around the world should not loom over public thoroughfares, suggesting official recognition of that religion’s paramountcy.”

The case is American Legion et al. v. American Humanist Assn., et at. No. 17–1717.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Consumer Bureau's Authority Supreme Court
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Consumer Bureau's Authority
October 18, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Friday to wade into a politically charged dispute over whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, is constitutional. The justices will be reviewing an appeals court decision that upheld the structure of... Read More

Justices to Consider Life-Without-Parole Sentences in D.C. Sniper Case Supreme Court
Justices to Consider Life-Without-Parole Sentences in D.C. Sniper Case
October 15, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - Do a pair of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court require the resentencing of Lee Boyd Malvo, the surviving assailant in the D.C. sniper case? That's the question the justices will consider when it convenes Wednesday to hear oral arguments in the case Mathena... Read More

Supreme Court to Consider State Role in Prosecuting Immigrants Supreme Court
Supreme Court to Consider State Role in Prosecuting Immigrants
October 15, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments about whether states can prosecute immigrants who use other people's Social Security numbers to get a job. The case not only has implications for the balance of power between the states and the federal government when... Read More

Supreme Court Weighs Ending Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Cases Law
Supreme Court Weighs Ending Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts in Criminal Cases
October 10, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court this week took up a question it has avoided in recent years: Whether the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution requires unanimous verdicts in criminal cases in both federal and state courts. In practice, the Bill of Rights applies to both the... Read More

Supreme Court to Rule on Gun Law As Mass Shootings Create Outrage Guns
Supreme Court to Rule on Gun Law As Mass Shootings Create Outrage
October 10, 2019
by Tom Ramstack

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court cast itself back into the emotional gun rights controversy when it put a lawsuit over a New York City ban on the transportation of  firearms on its schedule for its current session. The New York law bans most transportation of guns... Read More

Supreme Court Debates Whether Discrimination by 'Sex' Includes Gay and Transgender Workers Supreme Court
Supreme Court Debates Whether Discrimination by 'Sex' Includes Gay and Transgender Workers
October 8, 2019
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The cases came from New York, Georgia and Michigan. In one, Donald Zarda, a Long Island man who taught skydiving for 15 years, was fired by his employer, Altitude Express, when a female customer complained that he had told her he was gay to... Read More

Straight From The Well
scroll top