The Maryland Bladensburg Cross was allowed to stand. That’s the easy part. The hard part is what precisely prevented the Court–for the second time in as many Establishment Clause cases involving these kinds of issues (see also Town of Greece)–from cobbling together a majority opinion repudiating Lemon/endorsement and offering a new approach, even one limited to religious displays. Instead, we got:

• a plurality opinion (joined by Justice Breyer) with lots of extremely critical commentary about Lemon/endorsement, but that does not overrule Lemon/endorsement even in this narrow area;
• one concurrence that would have overruled Lemon/endorsement;
• one concurrence that preserves Lemon/endorsement;
• 4-6 votes for a history and tradition approach whose contours vary significantly depending on the justice;
• two opinions concurring in the judgment that would have overruled Lemon/endorsement;
• a dissent by Justice Ginsburg joined by Justice Sotomayor.

The puzzle: what prevented a majority from overruling Lemon/endorsement even in this specific area? Does Lemon/endorsement continue to apply in this area where the display is new and/or there is (lots of?) evidence of discriminatory motive? I find it difficult to understand how the extremely critical comments about Lemon/endorsement that four justices put their name to in the plurality, plus the views of another two justices that were ready to overrule Lemon/endorsement altogether, do not add up to some kind of actual overruling. Justice Kagan could certainly have written a concurrence in the judgment. Not to be, I’m afraid. Still, I’ll have more to say about the 4-6 votes for some variety or other of a history/tradition approach soon.