In 1934, a group of private citizens who wanted to honor soldiers who died in World War I erected a large cross in the Mojave desert in California. Over the years, the cross was repaired to withstand weather damage. Today, it stands on government land in the Mojave National Preserve, ten miles from the nearest highway. But you would not be able to see it since it is covered with a plywood box.

The cross in the desert was at the center of the Supreme Court ruling on April 28, 2010 in the case of Salazar v. Buono. The 5-4 decision overturned an appeals court ruling against the cross sitting on federal land. Six justices wrote separate opinions reflecting deep divisions within the court on the fundamental issue of freedom of religion. It is always significant to remember that the founders placed religious freedom at the beginning of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion ...” Cases have been argued over the centuries about the role and relationship of government and religion based on the Establishment Clause. Two of the most contentious cases in the second half of the 20th Century were over prayer in the schools and Bible reading. This case, in contrast, has received little public attention, but the story is revealing of the wide disparity of thinking about religious freedom among the current justices.

In 2001, Frank Buono, a retired employee of the National Park Service sued for removal of the cross. A federal court judge ruled in his favor that the cross violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause because it conveyed “a message of endorsement of religion.” Members of Congress who were very unhappy with this ruling, passed a law that transferred the acre of land it stood on to the Veterans of Foreign Wars – a private entity. Frank Buono then went to court again and challenged the transfer of the land. He won the case when the trial court ruled the transfer invalid as an attempt by the government to allow the cross to remain in place. The next step in the appeals process was to the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco where the trial court ruling was upheld – the land transfer was deemed invalid.

There was only one further recourse – the Supreme Court of the United States where arguments were presented in October 2009 on both sides. Observers at that session described it as the most heated exchange of the entire term. Peter Eliasberg, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said that many Jewish war veterans would not want to be honored by “the predominant symbol of Christianity,” one that “signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.” Justice Antonin Scalia answered that the symbol in a war memorial carried a broader meaning. “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.” Mr. Eliasberg countered, “There is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew.” Justice Scalia appeared to become angry when he replied, “I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that cross honors are the Christian war dead. I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”

When the Court issued its decision on April 28 to overturn the Ninth Circuit, they ruled on the issue of the land transfer and not the establishment clause issue of endorsing religion. They returned the case to the lower courts for reconsideration. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a plurality opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. He said, “A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies would be compounded if the fallen are forgotten.” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion, “The cross is not a universal symbol of sacrifice. It is the symbol of one particular sacrifice, and that sacrifice carries deeply significant meaning for those who adhere to the Christian faith.” His dissent was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

Six separate opinions were written, touching on different aspects of the case. It is not easy for non-lawyers to fathom the twists and turns of their thinking and conclusions. But, certain of their statements and positions were clear. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the plaintiff, Frank Buono, lacked standing to sue. Justice Kennedy wrote, “The land transfer-statute embodies Congress’s legislative judgment that this dispute is best resolved through a framework and policy of accommodation of a symbol that, while challenged under the Establishment Clause has complex meaning beyond the expression of religious views.” Justice Stevens wrote, “Congress has established no other national monument to the veterans of the Great War. This solitary cross in the middle of the desert is the national World War I memorial.”

Many years ago, we visited the vast American Cemetery in Normandy where seemingly endless rows of white marble crosses stretch as far as the eye can see. Among the simple crosses to honor the war dead of World War II are Stars of David for the Jewish war dead. There are no other symbols to honor Muslims, atheists and other service personnel who gave their lives for their country. In 2010, one had hoped that we had reached the time when the Supreme Court of the United States would deal directly with the cross in the Mojave desert – as a break with freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Joyce S. Anderson is the author of “Courage in High Heels,” “Flaw in the Tapestry,” “If Winter Comes” and “The Mermaids Singing.” She can be reached at JSAWrite@aol.com.