CASE NOTE – Freedom From Religion – American Legion, et al v American Humanist Association, et al 588 US (2019)

The case note, Freedom from Religion: American Legion, et al. v. American Humanist Association, et al. by Stephen Pitt-Walker, critiques the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 decision that upheld the presence of a Latin cross war memorial on public land, arguing it undermines the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The case revolved around whether the display of a religious symbol on government property violated the principle of government neutrality toward religion. The Court’s majority justified its decision through a “contextual historical justification,” framing the cross as a secular symbol of World War I remembrance rather than a Christian emblem. Pitt-Walker contends that this reasoning abandons the long-established “neutrality principle,” which had guided previous court rulings to ensure governmental impartiality in religious matters. He argues that the decision unfairly favours the Christian (cultural) majority, discriminating against religious minorities and non-religious groups, ultimately eroding pluralistic values. The dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is discussed extensively, as she criticized the Court’s departure from neutrality and warned of the discriminatory consequences. The case note locates the case within broader legal and philosophical frameworks, particularly exploring the tensions between rights theory and utilitarianism. Pitt-Walker proposes that the decision represents a form of “tyranny of the majority,” where the rights of minority groups are overshadowed by majoritarian interests. He concludes that the ruling sets a troubling precedent for future interpretations of the establishment clause, weakening constitutional protections for religious freedom in the U.S.