Case Law Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-National Capital Park

Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-National Capital Park

Document Cited Authorities (37) Cited in (32) Related

ARGUED: Monica Lynn Miller, AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Christopher John DiPompeo, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C.; William Charles Dickerson, MARYLAND–NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: David A. Niose, AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C.; Daniel P. Doty, LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL P. DOTY, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Adrian R. Gardner, Tracey A. Harvin, Elizabeth L. Adams, MARYLAND–NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellee Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission; Noel J. Francisco, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C.; Roger L. Byron, Kenneth A. Klukowski, FIRST LIBERTY, Plano, Texas, for Appellees The American Legion, The American Legion Department of Maryland, and The American Legion Colmar Manor Post 131. Patrick C. Elliott, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, Madison, Wisconsin, for Amici Freedom From Religion Foundation and Center For Inquiry. Eric C. Rassbach, THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, Washington, D.C.; Paul J. Zidlicky, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Charles J. Cooper, David H. Thompson, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., Haley N. Proctor, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Amici Senator Joe Manchin and Representatives Doug Collins, Vicky Hartzler, Jody Hice, Evan Jenkins, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and Alex Mooney. Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, Elbert Lin, Solicitor General, Julie Marie Blake, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Amicus State of West Virginia; Steve Marshall, Attorney General of Alabama, Montgomery, Alabama, for Amicus State of Alabama; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, for Amicus State of Arizona; Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General of Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas, for Amicus State of Arkansas; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus State of Florida; Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia, for Amicus State of Georgia; Douglas S. Chin, Attorney General of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, for Amicus State of Hawaii; Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho, Boise, Idaho, for Amicus State of Idaho; Curtis Hill, Attorney General of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Amicus State of Indiana; Derek Schmidt, Attorney General of Kansas, Topeka, Kansas, for Amicus State of Kansas; Andy Beshear, Attorney General of Kentucky, Frankfort, Kentucky, for Amicus State of Kentucky; Jeff Landry, Attorney General of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for Amicus State of Louisiana; Bill Schuette, Attorney General of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan, for Amicus State of Michigan; Timothy C. Fox, Attorney General of Montana, Helena, Montana, for Amicus State of Montana; Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of Nevada, Carson City, Nevada, for Amicus State of Nevada; Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General of North Dakota, Bismarck, North Dakota, for Amicus State of North Dakota; Michael DeWine, Attorney General of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, for Amicus State of Ohio; E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus State of Oklahoma; Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island, for Amicus State of Rhode Island; Alan Wilson, Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Amicus State of South Carolina; Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General of South Dakota, Pierre, South Dakota, for Amicus State of South Dakota; Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, Austin, Texas, for Amicus State of Texas; Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Amicus State of Utah; Mark R. Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Amicus Commonwealth of Virginia; Brad D. Schimel, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, for Amicus State of Wisconsin.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion, which Judge Wynn joined. Chief Judge Gregory wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

THACKER, Circuit Judge:

In this case we are called upon to decide whether the Establishment Clause is violated when a local government displays and maintains on public property a 40–foot tall Latin cross, established in memory of soldiers who died in World War I. The district court determined that such government action does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause because the cross has a secular purpose, it neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it does not have the primary effect of endorsing religion.

We disagree. The monument here has the primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion. The Latin cross is the core symbol of Christianity. And here, it is 40 feet tall; prominently displayed in the center of one of the busiest intersections in Prince George's County, Maryland; and maintained with thousands of dollars in government funds. Therefore, we hold that the purported war memorial breaches the "wall of separation between Church and State." Everson v. Bd. of Educ. , 330 U.S. 1, 16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

I.
A.

In 1918, some Prince George's County citizens started raising money to construct a giant cross, in addition to a previously established plaque, to honor 49 World War I soldiers from the county. The private organizers required each donor to sign a pledge sheet recognizing the existence of one god. It stated:

WE, THE CITIZENS OF MARYLAND, TRUSTING IN GOD, THE SUPREME RULER OF THE UNIVERSE, PLEDGE FAITH IN OUR BROTHERS WHO GAVE THEIR ALL IN THE WORLD WAR TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY. THEIR MORTAL BODIES HAVE TURNED TO DUST, BUT THEIR SPIRIT LIVES TO GUIDE US THROUGH LIFE IN THE WAY OF GODLINESS , JUSTICE, AND LIBERTY.
WITH OUR MOTTO, "ONE GOD , ONE COUNTRY AND ONE FLAG," WE CONTRIBUTE TO THIS MEMORIAL CROSS COMMEMORATING THE MEMORY OF THOSE WHO HAVE NOT DIED IN VAIN.

J.A. 1168 (emphasis supplied).1 Local media described the proposed monument as a "mammoth cross, a likeness of the Cross of Calvary, as described in the Bible."2 Id. at 1115. The private organizers held a groundbreaking ceremony on September 28, 1919, at which time the city of Bladensburg owned the land.

In 1922, the private organizers ran out of money and could not finish the project. So, the Snyder–Farmer Post of the American Legion (the "Post") assumed responsibility. At its initial fundraising drive, the Post had a Christian prayer-led invocation. Later that same year, on Memorial Day, the Post held memorial services around the unfinished monument, at which a Christian chaplain led prayer, and those in attendance sang the Christian hymn "Nearer My God to Thee." J.A. 2096. The Post ultimately completed the monument in 1925 and had Christian prayer services at the dedication ceremony, during which only Christian chaplains took part. No other religions were represented.

Upon completion, the monument at issue stood four stories tall in the shape of a Latin cross located in the median of a three-way highway intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland (the "Cross"). Over the years, memorial services continued to occur on a regular basis at the Cross, and those services often included prayer at invocations and benedictions, and speaker-led prayers. Sunday worship services have at times been held at the Cross. Nothing in the record indicates that any of these services represented any faith other than Christianity.

On March 1, 1961, Appellee Maryland–National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the "Commission"), a state entity, obtained title to the Cross and the land on which it sits. According to the Commission, it acquired the Cross and land in part because of safety concerns arising from the placement of the Cross in the middle of a busy traffic median. Therefore, the Commission purports that it assumed responsibility to "maintain[ ], repair[ ], and otherwise car[e] for" the Cross. J.A. 2529. The Commission has since spent approximately $117,000 to maintain and repair the Cross, and in 2008, it set aside an additional $100,000 for renovations.

B.

Today, the 40–foot tall Cross is situated on a traffic island taking up one-third of an acre at the busy intersection of Maryland Route 450 and U.S. Route 1 in Bladensburg. The American Legion's symbol—a small star inscribed with "U.S."—is affixed near the top of the Cross, and an American flag flies in the vicinity of the Cross. The Cross sits on a rectangular base, with each side inscribed with one of four words: "valor," "endurance," "courage," and "de...

5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit – 2018
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
"...cases potentially addressing the contours of Lemon under the Establishment Clause. See Am. Humanist Ass’n v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n , 874 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2017), and Am. Humanist Ass’n v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n , 891 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2..."
Document | U.S. Supreme Court – 2019
American Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass'n
"...requiring "removal or demolition of the Cross, or removal of the arms from the Cross to form a non-religious slab or obelisk." 874 F.3d 195, 202, n. 7 (C.A.4 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The American Legion intervened to defend the Cross. The District Court granted summary judg..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit – 2021
Woodring v. Jackson Cnty., 20-1881
"...shows, the plaintiffs in American Legion were also relying on "offended observer" standing. Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n , 874 F.3d 195, 203 (4th Cir. 2017) (concluding that the plaintiffs had standing because they "regularly encountered the Cross as reside..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina – 2018
Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Perry
"...nor the relief requested requires its individual members to participate in the lawsuit. Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland–Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195, 203–04 (4th Cir. 2017) ; see also Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2018
Sevier v. Lowenthal
"...moreover, have concluded that Justice Breyer's opinion in Van Orden controls. See, e.g., Am. Humanist Assoc. v. Maryland–Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n , 874 F.3d 195, 205 (4th Cir. 2017) (collecting cases). On that reading of the case, the Court "did not overrule Lemon " because "Jus..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 97 Núm. 6, August 2020 – 2020
CROSSING DOCTRINES: CONFLATING STANDING AND THE MERITS UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
"...J., concurring in the judgment). (13.) Id. at 2098-2101 (quoting Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195, 203 (4th Cir. 2017)). (14.) Id. at 2098. (15.) Id. at 2102. (16.) Brief for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as Amicus Curiae Supporting Pe..."
Document | Chapter 2 Subject Matter and Personal Jurisdiction, Removal, and Other Prefiling Considerations
2.2 Constitutional and Statutory Foundations
"...Id. at 183.[64] Id. at 184 (citation omitted); see American Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195, 203-04 (4th Cir. 2017) (nonprofit organization that advocates for separation of church and state had standing to challenge monument as violation of E..."
Document | Vol. 20 Núm. 1, March 2020 – 2020
REFLECTIONS ON THE CHURCH/STATE PUZZLE.
"...in that action. Id. (136.) Id (137.) Id (138.) Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Capital Park, 147 F. Supp. 3d 373 (D. Md. 2015)), rev'd, 874 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. (139.) Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n. 874 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2017). (140.) Reply Brief for..."
Document |
Table of Authorities
"...130 American Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................................... 71 American Standard, Inc. v. Bendix Corp., 487 F. Supp. 254 (W...."
Document | Núm. 19, January 2021 – 2021
AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
"...& Plan. Comm'n, 147 F. Supp. 3d 373, 389 (D. Md. 2015). (46.) Id. (47.) Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Cap. Park & Plan. Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195, 212 (4th Cir. (48.) Id. at 206-12. (49.) Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Cap. Park & Plan. Comm'n, 891 F.3d 117, 117 (4th Cir. 2018) (e..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 97 Núm. 6, August 2020 – 2020
CROSSING DOCTRINES: CONFLATING STANDING AND THE MERITS UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
"...J., concurring in the judgment). (13.) Id. at 2098-2101 (quoting Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195, 203 (4th Cir. 2017)). (14.) Id. at 2098. (15.) Id. at 2102. (16.) Brief for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty as Amicus Curiae Supporting Pe..."
Document | Chapter 2 Subject Matter and Personal Jurisdiction, Removal, and Other Prefiling Considerations
2.2 Constitutional and Statutory Foundations
"...Id. at 183.[64] Id. at 184 (citation omitted); see American Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195, 203-04 (4th Cir. 2017) (nonprofit organization that advocates for separation of church and state had standing to challenge monument as violation of E..."
Document | Vol. 20 Núm. 1, March 2020 – 2020
REFLECTIONS ON THE CHURCH/STATE PUZZLE.
"...in that action. Id. (136.) Id (137.) Id (138.) Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Capital Park, 147 F. Supp. 3d 373 (D. Md. 2015)), rev'd, 874 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. (139.) Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n. 874 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2017). (140.) Reply Brief for..."
Document |
Table of Authorities
"...130 American Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................................... 71 American Standard, Inc. v. Bendix Corp., 487 F. Supp. 254 (W...."
Document | Núm. 19, January 2021 – 2021
AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION AND THE FUTURE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
"...& Plan. Comm'n, 147 F. Supp. 3d 373, 389 (D. Md. 2015). (46.) Id. (47.) Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Cap. Park & Plan. Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195, 212 (4th Cir. (48.) Id. at 206-12. (49.) Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Cap. Park & Plan. Comm'n, 891 F.3d 117, 117 (4th Cir. 2018) (e..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit – 2018
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
"...cases potentially addressing the contours of Lemon under the Establishment Clause. See Am. Humanist Ass’n v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n , 874 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2017), and Am. Humanist Ass’n v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm’n , 891 F.3d 117 (4th Cir. 2..."
Document | U.S. Supreme Court – 2019
American Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass'n
"...requiring "removal or demolition of the Cross, or removal of the arms from the Cross to form a non-religious slab or obelisk." 874 F.3d 195, 202, n. 7 (C.A.4 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The American Legion intervened to defend the Cross. The District Court granted summary judg..."
Document | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit – 2021
Woodring v. Jackson Cnty., 20-1881
"...shows, the plaintiffs in American Legion were also relying on "offended observer" standing. Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Md.-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n , 874 F.3d 195, 203 (4th Cir. 2017) (concluding that the plaintiffs had standing because they "regularly encountered the Cross as reside..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina – 2018
Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Perry
"...nor the relief requested requires its individual members to participate in the lawsuit. Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Maryland–Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 874 F.3d 195, 203–04 (4th Cir. 2017) ; see also Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia – 2018
Sevier v. Lowenthal
"...moreover, have concluded that Justice Breyer's opinion in Van Orden controls. See, e.g., Am. Humanist Assoc. v. Maryland–Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n , 874 F.3d 195, 205 (4th Cir. 2017) (collecting cases). On that reading of the case, the Court "did not overrule Lemon " because "Jus..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex