Reference no: EM133334377

In Bladensburg, Maryland, as part ofa memorial park honoring veterans is a 40-foot tall cross, which is the subject of this litigation. Construction on the cross began in 1918, and it was widely described using Christian terms and celebrated in Christian services. In 1961, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission acquired the cross and the land, as well as the responsibility to maintain, repair, and otherwise care for the cross. The Commission has spent approximately $117,000 to maintain and repair the cross. In 2008, the Commission set aside an additional $100,000 for renovations.

Several non-Christian residents of Prince George's County, Maryland, expressed offense at the cross, which allegedly amounts to governmental affiliation with Christianity. American Humanist Association is a nonprofit organization advocating for separation of church and state. Together, AHA and the individual residents sued the Commission under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Commission's display and maintenance ofthe cross violates the Constitution.

In a T-2 decision, Justice Alito explained in the majority decision that although the cross originated as a Christian symbol, it has also taken on a secular meaning. In particular, the cross became a symbol of World War I as evidenced by its use in the present controversy. Precedent found in the Supreme Court's 1971 Lemon test, used to determine Constitutional violations, does not serve its intended purpose, particulany as applied to religious symbols or monuments. Thus, when the question arises whether to keep a religious monument in place {as opposed to a question whether to put up a new one), there should be a presumption that the monument is constitutional.

Applying this presumption rather than the Lemon test, the Court found the Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Constitution because it has historical importance beyond its admittedly Chn'stian symbolism.

1. Identify the constitutional clause that is common to both Engie V Vitaie (1952] and The American Legion v. American Humanist Association {2019].

2. Based on the constitutional clause identi?ed in part A, explain why the facts ofEngie v Vitaie(1962] led to a different holding than the holding inThe American Legion v. American HamanistAssociation [2019}.

3. Describe an action that The American Humanist Association, can take after the decision in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019] to limit the impact of the decision.