Supreme Court: Bladensburg ‘Peace Cross’ Can Stay on Public Land

Steven Lowe stands near the Bladensburg Peace Cross, which he argued violates the Constitution's prohibition against government support for religion. The Supreme Court on Thursday disagreed. Photo by Eugene "Jesse" Nash IV/Capital News Service

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a massive cross can remain on public land at a busy intersection in Bladensburg, Md.

A majority of the justices, led by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, ruled that the cross was constitutional, rejecting claims that it violated the Constitution’s prohibition on establishing a government religion.

The monument at the center of the dispute is a 40-foot tall Latin “Peace Cross” at the junction of Bladensburg Road, Baltimore Avenue and Annapolis Road. The memorial was completed in 1925 to honor the Prince George’s County soldiers who were killed during World War I.

In 2014, the American Humanist Association and others filed a lawsuit, arguing that the cross’ presence on public land and the use of public funds by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission to maintain the cross were unconstitutional.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with them. That court ruled in 2017 that “The monument here has the primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion.” The judges wrote that “the purported war memorial breaches the ‘wall of separation between Church and State.’”

That ruling was reversed Thursday by the high court, although there were varied reasons that the seven justices in the majority decided to do so. The two justices dissenting in the case were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Alito wrote, “Although the cross has long been a preeminent Christian symbol, its use in the Bladensburg memorial has a special significance,” given the historical use of the cross to mark the graves of soldiers who lost their lives. The cross has taken on a secular meaning in other circumstances.”

To destroy or deface the cross “that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment,” Alito added.

Ginsburg, who was joined by Sotomayor in her dissent, wrote that using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol.

“Just as a Star of David is not suitable to honor Christians who died serving their country, so a cross is not suitable to honor those of other faiths who died defending their nation,” she wrote.

“As I see it, when a cross is displayed on public property, the government may be presumed to endorse its religious content. The venue is surely associated with the State; the symbol and its meaning are just as surely associated exclusively with Christianity.”

Maryland Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan (R) lauded Thursday’s Supreme Court decision.

“This is a great victory after we fought tirelessly to keep the Peace Cross standing in recognition of the valor, endurance, courage, and devotion of our World War I veterans,” he said in a statement. “Today’s ruling ensures that this memorial—a dignified tribute to those who came before us and made the ultimate sacrifice—will stand tall and proud for the ages.”

[email protected]


  1. In reading the decision I have taken several items that encourage me. One is that several Justices have decided that it is time to look at many of the cases that come to thew courts as not deserving of being allowed to be litigated. that being where one has no standing in cause to bring a suit. In other words if offended it is not a cause for a court case. This in the time we are now experiencing where people scream when you say something they don’t like and when schools are making decisions on what “might” offend another are the only issues that the cite. The second is the dissatisfaction that they have with the issue of of lower courts using a previously designated court case in deciding laws on Establishment issues. This “Lemon” law leads into the courts using the decision to assert both for and against decisions based upon the whims of each courts justices. They uniformly declared that this will not be the case any longer and that a constant vision must be used to decide these cases. I quote part of Justice Gorsuch’s opinion below.

    GORSUCH,J., concurring in judgment 588 U. S. ____ (2019)

    Abandoning offended observer standing will mean only a return to the usual demands of Article III, requiring a real controversy with real impact on real persons to make a federal case out of it. Along the way, this will bring with it the welcome side effect of rescuing the federal judiciary from the sordid business of having to pass aesthetic judgment, one by one, on every public display in this country for its perceived capacity to give offense.

    It’s a business that has consumed volumes of the federal reports, invited erratic results, frustrated generations of judges, and fomented “the very kind of religiously based divisiveness that the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid.”

    In light of today’s decision, we should be done with this business, and our lower court colleagues may dispose of cases like these on a motion to dismiss rather than enmeshing themselves for years in intractable disputes sure to generate more heat than light.

    In a large and diverse country, offense can be easily found. Really, most every governmental action probably offends somebody.

    No doubt, too, that offense can be sincere, sometimes well taken, even wise. But recourse for disagreement and offense does not lie in federal litigation.

    Instead, in a society that holds among its most cherished ambitions mutual respect, tolerance, self-rule, and democratic responsibility, an “offended viewer” may “avert his eyes,” Erznoznik v.Jacksonville , 422 U. S. 205, 212 (1975), or pursue a political solution.

    Today’s decision represents a welcome step toward restoring this Court’s recognition of these truths, and I respectfully concur in the judgment.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here