Is a Seal Historically Significant under American Legion v. American Humanist Association?

On August 8th, a federal appeals court made the decision to allow Lehigh County (which happens to be where I was raised) to keep its current seal, which displays the Latin cross. The county court case was brought in 2016 by local citizens and a group called Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose purpose is to “promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church and educate the public on matters relating to non-theism.” The group claimed that the inclusion of the cross represented an endorsement of religion by the civil authority of Lehigh County, which violates the Constitution’s establishment of religion clause.

-->

The Foundation won the district case. The county appealed, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on the case in 2018. The appeals court opted to wait till after the pending Supreme Court case American Legion v. American Humanist Association. On June 20^th, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the American legion, reversing a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision for the removal of a World War 1 memorial cross due to an establishment clause challenge based on the Lemon test. The Lemon test was based on a Supreme Court case decided in 1972 that established rules to determine what defined establishment of religion. Due to this decision, the Appeals Court ruled that the Foundation and residents challenging the monument did not effectively show any evidence of discrimination to other religious viewpoints or significant promotion of a certain religious denomination, and therefore had no case against the longstanding seal.

The county stated that the decision further solidifies the Constitutional right for communities to “maintain religious symbols in public places in recognition of the role of religion in their history and culture”. The Foundation released their statement to local news outlets, arguing that the decision “rules that the majority can trample the First Amendment in the name of their religion”. This is the first case decided utilizing the new religious establishment rules created in American Legion v. American Humanist Association.

Clearly, this case is a first look into how the American Legion case will change religious establishment cases across the country. The decision displays a key challenge for the Supreme Court that, in this case, they have succeeded in completing effectively: fixing past decisions that left gray areas on decisive modern debates.  The 1972 Lemon case set a precedent negatively effecting future court proceedings determining establishment of religion for nearly 50 years. The three guidelines employed in the Lemon test to establish if something violated the First Amendment included a required secular purpose for all legislative doctrine and court decisions, a primary effect that did not advance (nor, notably inhibit) religion, and a requirement that any magistrate may not foster an, “excessive government entanglement with religion”. Originally, the Lemon test was applied for legislation, and therefore effectively stripped any law created with religious preference or suppression. As cases were brought about that utilized the decision to refer to monuments and landmarks, the obvious need to define various gray areas in the decision become outwardly apparent to law makers and judges.

The aspect challenged in the American Legion case is the application of the test to monuments and longstanding structures with denominational significance. The Freedom From Religion Foundation attempts to apply this ruling to a historical and cultural symbol used by a civil authority. Although comparable to the decision about the World War 1 monument, the case questions the allowance of a symbol, rather than a physical monument. In the opinion of the court (and myself), this difference is insignificant in shaping the characterization of a historical feature of a magistrate that does not negatively effect or positively promote any religion or its teachings. Although the Latin cross shown in the seal has undeniable Christian roots, the many years it has been in existence and used as a proud symbol of the county has allowed its connotation to expand to represent the county’s history itself. As articulated by Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman in his panel decision, “the seal has become a familiar, embedded feature of Lehigh County, attaining a broader meaning than any one of its many symbols.”

The Supreme Court decision has been criticized as a slippery slope for religious establishment in state and municipal governments. Personally, I think this attitude critically misses the key factors of the decision stating the sole focus of the precedent: historical structures with cultural significance. Where would the “slope” go? The decision is clear, concise, and indisputably just for all religious denominations represented in United States history. Both the Supreme Court and the 4^th Appeals Court followed the rights granted in the first amendment and avoided the slippery slope of establishment of religion.