Supreme Court will take case on constitutional challenge to Maryland's Peace Cross

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

Courts & Law

Supreme Court will take case on constitutional challenge to Maryland's Peace Cross

By Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow
November 2 at 4:53 PM

The Supreme Court announced Friday it will decide whether a 40-foot cross in the median of a busy suburban Maryland highway is a secular memorial to World War I dead or an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The Peace Cross, made of granite and cement, was built in 1925 as a tribute to local men who died during World War I. The memorial was initially paid for by local families, businesses and The American Legion. But the giant cross sits on a grassy median owned since 1961 by a state commission, which pays for its maintenance and upkeep.

The challenge to the 93-year-old cross began with the American Humanist Association, a national nonprofit atheist organization that has filed similar lawsuits throughout the country. The group won a similar case this month in Florida seeking the removal of a 34-foot-tall cross displayed in a city-owned park.

The high court has sent mixed messages when it comes to public displays of religion, allowing some monuments with religious content to stand while rejecting others.
....

Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

Ann Marimow covers legal affairs for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005 and has covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Follow https://twitter.com/amarimow

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-will-take-case-on-constitutional-challenge-to-marylands-peace-cross/2018/11/02/4262e5e2-c259-11e8-b338-a3289f6cb742_story.html

---

Robert Barnes Retweeted

https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

Pleased to report the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our Maryland Peace Cross case. Oral argument in a few months. Great work by so many, especially @hoganlovells associate Mitch Reich.

Link to tweet

-- -- -- -- --

SCOTUS grants cert in first major religion clause case in the Kavanaugh era.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/11682520

[link:https://twitter.com/PopehatPickUpTheVoiceMailMomHat] Retweeted:

Very interesting . . . SCOTUS grants cert in first major religion clause case in the Kavanaugh era. The issue is the constitutionality of a public, cross-shaped war memorial. Here's how the cert petition framed the issue:

Link to tweet

-- -- -- --

Supreme Court agrees to hear case challenging huge cross as violation of church and state
BY LYDIA WHEELER - 11/02/18 05:16 PM EDT

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/414639-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-challenging-huge-cross-as-violation-of-church

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. SCOTUSblog: The American Legion v. American Humanist Association

The American Legion v. American Humanist Association

Consolidated with:

Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
17-1717 4th Cir. TBD TBD TBD TBD OT 2018
Issues: (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Conflicted

Don't see what such lawsuits are accomplishing even if they win, because Hobby Lobby wins too. Separation of Church and State is under erosion. But I do think there should be some allowance for the moral historical element. Those people paid for the monument to their loved ones, thinking they were creating a permanent monument. It should be divested, if necessary, to a private caretaker organization, even if they then contract with the state to mow the lawn.

[unblock]

3. i have little hope here given the makeup of the court.

the framing is of course completely disingenuous. of course it's a cross because the cross is a symbol of christianity.
it's not a war memorial symbol that just completely coincidentally happens to be a cross having nothing to do with christianity.

also, oh, it just happens to be on public land because of some traffic issue! it's not like we put it there with bad intent!


i can sorta get the argument that some things are just not a big enough deal to worry about, even if they're technically unconstitutional, but at least base your arguments on materiality rather than trying to claim it isn't a giant cross isn't a religious symbol.

ffs.

[elleng]

4. a busy intersection in Bladensburg, Md.

[keopeli]

5. This sounds like a setup that's been planned for years.

At the first hint of a conflict over church v state, they build a major intersection around it!

Then, they dare the other side to sue. And, coincidentally, the other side is only happy to do so.

Now, the new SCOTUS starts a new religious argument all together. Like Citizens United.

It's only going to get worse now with SCOTUS.