The American Legion v. American Humanist Association - Post-Decision Podcast
SCOTUScast featuring Christopher DiPompeo
SCOTUScast featuring Christopher DiPompeo
On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a case considering whether state funding of a war memorial in the form of a religious symbol is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In 1925, the American Legion erected a memorial cross (Peace Cross) in Bladensburg, MD, to honor 49 soldiers who died fighting in World War I. In 1961, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission) acquired the land and has maintained the memorial using public funding. In 2014, the American Humanist Association (AHA) and other civil associations filed suit in District Court, alleging that the presence and publicly-funded maintenance of the Peace Cross violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. AHA sought relocation, demolition, or removal of the cross’s arms. The district court ruled in favor of the American Legion, applying the Supreme Court precedents Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005), concluding that the Peace Cross did not violate the Establishment Clause.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that judgment, applying the same precedents as the district court--but concluding that the Peace Cross conveyed to a reasonable observer the impression of state endorsement of Christianity, and excessively entangled the Commission with religion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the Establishment Clause issue.
By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that “[t]he Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.” Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Alito’s opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D was also joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh, but not Justice Kagan. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Breyer in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion and Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
To discuss the case, we have Christopher DiPompeo, Partner at Jones Day.
Partner, Jones Day
Christopher DiPompeo's practice focuses on complex litigation and appellate advocacy in the context of business restructurings and chapter 11 bankruptcies. He has significant experience across a variety of industries, including financial services, government contracts, gaming, and municipal government. Chris regularly counsels clients in connection with issues relating to bankruptcy jurisdiction and venue, the automatic stay, post-petition financing, and complex commercial contracts.
In 2013 and 2014, Chris was a member of the Jones Day team representing the City of Detroit, Michigan in its historic chapter 9 bankruptcy case. He played a significant role in many aspects of the chapter 9 case, including litigation over the City's eligibility for bankruptcy, its request to obtain post-petition financing, and confirmation of its plan of adjustment. Chris also played a lead role in the City's lawsuit challenging the legality of $1.4 billion of pension obligation certificates of participation issued by the City in 2005 and 2006. Most recently, he has represented major creditors of Energy Future Holdings Corp., Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, General Motors, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Prior to joining Jones Day, Chris served as a law clerk for the Chief Justice of the United States, John G. Roberts Jr., and for Judge Paul V. Niemeyer of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In 2012, he was awarded a Temple Bar Scholarship, through which he traveled to London to work alongside some of the most senior members of the English bar and judiciary.