Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

Lehigh County Seal Containing Cross Deemed Constitutional

Written by: on August 09, 2019 | Category: Blog | Tags:

The official Lehigh County seal of a Latin cross surrounded by historic, patriotic, cultural and economic symbols is Constitutional, declared the Third Circuit on August 8, 2019, following the guidance recently provided by the United States Supreme Court in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n.

In November 2014, The Freedom From Religion Foundation (“FFRF) wrote Lehigh County to assert a complaint about Lehigh County’s seal and asked for its discontinuation.  When the County refused, the FFRF initiated a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the seal violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Originally before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of PA, on cross motions for summary judgment, the trial Court held the seal unconstitutional under the Lemon test as modified by the endorsement test.  Specifically, the trial Court found that the cross lacked a secular purpose and a reasonable observer would perceive it as an endorsement of religion.  The County appealed.  During the pendency of the appeal, the United States Supreme Court considered the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n.  In a 7-2 decision issued June 20, 2019, the SCOTUS clarified that the Lemon test no longer governs cases involving religiously expressive monuments, symbols or displays.   Prior to such ruling, to withstand a challenge of violation of the Establishment Clause, the monument, symbol or display would have needed to serve a secular purpose, have a principal or primary effect that neither advanced nor inhibited religion, and not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.  The abandonment of the Lemon test by the SCOTUS paved the way for Lehigh County to prevail before the Third Circuit.

Longstanding community symbols, like the Seal of Lehigh County which was adopted December 1944, now have a “strong presumption of constitutionality” which had not been overcome in this case.  As FFRF was unable to show any “discriminatory intent” by Lehigh County in maintaining the Seal with the Latin Cross or “deliberate disrespect” in the original design, the strong presumption of constitutionality for this established, religiously expressive symbol stands.  So this familiar, embedded symbol of Lehigh County shall remain.

Attorney Kimberly Krupka is a partner in Gross McGinley’s Litigation Group. Kim regularly represents regional hospitals and large health networks as well as corporations in legal disputes at the local, state, and federal levels.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog