Justices Take up Case of 'Peace Cross' on Public Land
The justices granted certiorari in two related cases Friday, both of which involve a war memorial in the shape of the cross on public land.
November 02, 2018 at 06:04 PM
3 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it would take up a church-state case that could reshape its interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
The justices granted certiorari in two related cases: Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association and The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, both involving a war memorial in the shape of the cross on public land in Maryland and whether it violates the establishment clause, which bars laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled last year that the 93-year-old World War I “Peace Cross” memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland, which is visible from a busy highway, “has the primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion.” The full appeals court in March denied en banc review by an 8-6 vote. Three other circuits have ruled differently in similar cases.
“Left undisturbed, the decision below will have enormous consequences” and could jeopardize hundreds of other cross-shaped memorials, Jones Day partner Michael Carvin wrote in his petition for the American Legion.
“If permitted to stand, the Fourth Circuit's decision will compel the removal or dismemberment of a cherished war memorial that has served as a site of solemn commemoration and civic unity for nearly a century,” wrote Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal in his petition on behalf of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which acquired the cross in 1961.
The fact that Carvin, a conservative lawyer, and Katyal, the former acting U.S. solicitor general in the Obama administration, are on the same side of the case, reflects the wide interest it has garnered. The cases are likely to be argued late this year or early next year.
“It strikes a lot of nerves,” said Baker Botts partner Aaron Streett, author of an amicus brief in the case along with Reagan administration Attorney General Edwin Meese III, on behalf of retired generals and flag officers. “It's one of the few interesting cases this term.”
Other veteran advocates supporting the memorial in amicus briefs include Paul Clement of Kirkland & Ellis for the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Charles Cooper of Cooper & Kirk for 109 senators and House members. Monica Miller, senior counsel for the humanist group, wrote the briefs opposing certiorari.
Carvin's petition invited the court to adopt a new test for determining whether a government action or statute—in this case the Maryland commission's ownership and maintenance of the cross—violates the establishment clause.
The strict Lemon test—named for the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman precedent—asks whether there is a genuine nonreligious purpose, whether the government action advances religion and whether it excessively entangles government with religion. Carvin urges the court to adopt a more permissive standard that mainly asks whether government is coercing religious practice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250