Does a Latin cross monument on public land that has stood for decades violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

The Peace Cross is a 40-foot Latin cross memorial erected in 1925 to honor local soldiers who died in World War I. The cross stands on public land in Maryland and has remained in the same location for 94 years. The memorial was organized with secular motives of commemorating fallen soldiers, with no evidence suggesting organizers sought to disparage or exclude any religious group. Secular values are inscribed on the Cross, and it stands among other memorials that strengthen its message of patriotism and commemoration. The monument generated no controversy in the community until this lawsuit was filed, with no evidence that the lack of public outcry was due to intimidation.

The American Humanist Association filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Peace Cross under the Establishment Clause. The case proceeded through lower courts before reaching the Supreme Court.

(Breyer, J.)

No. The Peace Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause and may remain on public land. The Establishment Clause analysis requires consideration of each case in light of basic purposes the Religion Clauses serve: assuring religious liberty and tolerance, avoiding religiously based social conflict, and maintaining separation of church and state. Multiple factors support the Cross's constitutionality. The Latin cross is uniquely associated with fallen World War I soldiers, reflecting historical context rather than religious endorsement. The organizers acted with undeniably secular motives of commemorating local soldiers without evidence of intent to disparage religious groups. The secular inscriptions and placement among other memorials reinforce patriotic and commemorative messages rather than religious ones. The Cross's 94-year presence without community controversy demonstrates its acceptance as a memorial rather than religious symbol. Ordering removal or alteration would signal hostility toward religion inconsistent with Establishment Clause traditions. The memorial cannot reasonably be understood as government effort to favor a particular religious sect or promote religion over nonreligion. Historical context and longstanding community acceptance distinguish this case from situations involving newly erected religious displays that might prove divisive.