Case brief

Prachita Uprety

November 29, 2020

Prof. Sue Burum

Peace Cross Case Brief

Residents vs Peace Cross (2019)

Issue: Should the peace cross stand in traffic median in suburbs outside Washington D.C.?

Holding: The court declared that the peace cross should be allowed to stand. 7 in 9 judges agree.

Reasoning: Justice Samuel Alito reasoned with the holding explaining that even though the Cross came

into widespread use as a symbol for Christianity it has taken a secular meaning in other contexts like it

was a central symbol of World War 1 which explains the choice to use the cross as the memorial for

Prince Gorge’s Country soldiers. Justice Alito compares Norte Dame not only as fundamentally a place of

worship but also as inextricably linked with the idea of Paris and France. Likewise, taking down the

Peace Corps rather than restoring neutrality is aggressively hostile to religion.

Concurring Opinion: Justice Breyer reasoned with the holding mentioning it did not create an excessive

entanglement with religion. No one had challenged the presence of the monument for 40 years, which

suggests that the public regards it as a part of a broader moral and historical message reflective of a

cultural heritage. Justice Gorsuch adds that the cross should be permitted to stand as simply being

offended by the cross’s presence is not enough to justify a lawsuit.

Dissenters: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg expressed disagreement saying that the cross isn’t the symbol

of World War 1 as it was never perceived as an appropriate headstand for Jewish soldiers and other who

didn’t adhere to Christianity. She says maintaining the Peace Cross elevates Christianity over other faiths

and religion over non religion.

My opinion: I agree with Justice Ginsberg as well because we always perceive history as true for all but

forget to see other people who also were in World War 1 if that is what the statue represents. The cross

is still a symbol of Christianity and not a symbol of secularism.