CASE NOTE – Freedom From Religion – American Legion, et al v American Humanist Association, et al 588 US (2019)
Main Article Content
Abstract
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.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright and grant to the Journal the right to publish under license.
Authors retain the right to use their article (provided you acknowledge the published original in standard bibliographic citation form) in the following ways, as long as you do not sell it or give it away in ways that would conflict with our commercial business interests:
internal educational or other purposes of your own institution or company;
mounted on your own or your institutions website;
posted to free public servers of preprints and or article in your subject area;
or in whole or in part, as the basis for your own further publications or spoken presentations.