Supreme Court rules peace Cross war memorial can stand

close tovideo Supreme court says peace Cross memorial can stay

The Supreme court has decided that a peace Cross war memorial can stand on public land outside of Washington, DC; Shannon Bream reports on the 7-2 decision.

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a peace Cross war memorial on public land outside of Washington, DC, can stand to determine, in a 7-2 decision, that it is not against the Constitution.

Residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, and the American Humanist Association (AHA) had filed a lawsuit against defend to have taken the cross, and the American Legion, whose symbol also intervened on the monument, it to. While the residents and the AHA claims that a cross monument on public land, violated the Constitution, the court found that support factors, including the history of the memorial, the idea that it is not religious in nature.


“For almost a century, the Bladensburg cross, the community has expressed grief over the loss of the young men who died, his thanks for their sacrifice and their devotion to the ideals for which they fought,” justice Samuel Alito wrote in the opinion. Alito noted that while this particular cross does not serve a religious purpose, to remove it, because it would be a cross of a religiously-charged action.

“It has been a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical change at this time would be seen by many, and not as a neutral act, but as the manifestation of” a hostility toward religion that has no place in our establishment clause traditions,'” he wrote, quoting from Justice Breyer ‘ s meeting, the 2005 decision in Van Orden v. Perry.

The court’s decision reverses the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cross was declared unconstitutional.

The 7-2 majority on Thursday quoted, the structure of the historic nature in its narrowly drawn decision, namely the Latin cross design reflects the nationwide trend to the time when it was built to honor the war dead of the community monuments. The cross was in connection with the world war, and the court noted that the United States in military awards, such as the cross of merit in 1918, and the Navy Cross in 1919.

The Bladensburg Peace Cross, as it is known, sits in a traffic circle to honor in the suburbs of Washington, 49 local world war II soldiers who died in battle overseas.

His supporters, including the Trump administration, said it was only created in order to honor these heroes and the worldly in nature. Opponents called it an impermissible overlap of Church and state, because it is controlled and maintained by the Maryland parks commission.

The court noted that while the cross has its roots in Christianity, so are there currently seems to be ” contexts “undeniably secular,” as trademarks for Blue Cross Blue Shield, Bayer Corporation, and certain products of Johnson & Johnson.

The court drew a distinction between the keeping of the established monuments with religious symbols, such as the peace cross, and build new, stating, “intimacy itself can lead to a reason for the preservation of” and “in the course Of time, to a strong presumption of constitutionality.”

Also AHA-recognized that the cross-can be memorials allowed in some cases, such as certain world war I the Latin crosses in Arlington National Cemetery. While the AHA claimed that these crosses are different because the court said in a cemetery, and are more in connection with the individual soldiers, that does not make a difference, as the memorials serve the same purpose as tombstones for many grieving families.

Ultimately, the court found that, in spite of the religious significance of the crosses, in General, this particular memorial does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, although public funds for care.

“[T]there is no evidence of discrimination to receive the end of intention in the selection of the design of the funeral ceremony or the decision of a Maryland Commission,” the court said. “The Religion clauses of the Constitution aim to promote a society in which people of all faiths can live together in harmony, and the presence of Bladensburg cross in the country, where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with this objective.”


Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a secular Problem with the idea that a cross might be, only because it serves as a war memorial.

“So like a star of David is not suitable to the honor of the Christians who died to serve their country, so a cross is not suitable to the honor of other religions who died in the defense of their nation,” she wrote in a dissenting opinion, where she was from justice Sonia Sotomayor. The contradiction claimed by Christianity stands the cross of peace on a public highway, the government “over other religions, and religion over nonreligion.”

Fox News’ Bill Mears contributed to this report.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular