Supreme Court Agrees to Hear WWI Memorial Cross Case

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appealA request made after a trial by a party that has lost on one or more issues that a higher court review the decision to determine if it was correct. To make such a request is "to appeal" or "to take an appeal." One who appeals is called the "appellant;" the other party is the "appellee." of a 4th Circuit decision involving a Maryland cross-shaped WWI memorial. In 2017, the 4^th US Circuit Court of Appeals held 2-1 that the structure, erected in 1925, “has the primary effect of excessively endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion.”

The structure, which was built by the American Legion using private donations stands on public land at a busy intersection and is maintained with government funds. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission obtained ownership of the property in 1961.

The American Humanist Association filed the case on behalf of non-Christian residents in Prince George’s County claimed that the cross “breaches the wall of separation between Church and State.”

At the trial level, the District Court ruled that the memorial was constitutional and granted summary judgmentA determination made by a court, applying law to facts, without going to full trial. in favor of the American Legion and the Commission.

In the 4^th Circuit opinion, the two judges writing for the majority indicated that the remedy might not involve complete removal of the cross, but the judges proposed an alternative such as removing the arms to create an obelisk, a concept that horrified the Christian groups defending the cross.

Monuments on public land that reference religion and symbolic acts such as traditional invocations at government meetings have been a perennial topic of dispute and litigants have drawn lines between the government acknowledging the existence of religious adherents and actively promoting a particular religious belief. Based on precedentA court decision in an earlier case with facts and legal issues similar to a dispute currently before a court. Judges will generally "follow precedent" - meaning that they use the principles established in earlier cases to decide new cases that have similar facts and raise similar legal issues. A judge may disregard precedent if a party can show that the earlier case was wrongly decided, or that it differed in some significant way from the current case. in Van Order v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) involving the Ten Commandments on public property and Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014)  involving invocations at city meetings, it is likely that the Court will find in favor of the American Legion.

One of the key hurdles in bringing Establishment Clause cases forward is whether those who are offended have sufficient standingThe legal right to bring a lawsuit. A party must show that it faces enough harm or is permitted by law to pursue a case. Without standing, a case can be dismissed without a decision on the merits of the case. to sue. For example, in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that citizens did not have sufficient standing as taxpayers to bring Establishment Clause challenges against Executive Branch programs. While this involves a state issue1. The disputed point between parties in a lawsuit; 2. To send out officially, as in a court issuing an order., a similar analysis might be applied, although it also seems likely that in granting certiorariWhen a higher court agrees to review the decision of a lower court. If an appellate court grants a writ of certiorari, it agrees to take the appeal., the Court will dispense with the issue of standing and address the public display issue head-on as it did in Van Orden and Galloway.

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association  (Docket Number 17-1717) – Oral argument date to be determined