Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion, which Judge Wynn joined. Chief Judge Gregory wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
THACKER, Circuit Judge:
In this case we are called upon to decide whether the Establishment Clause is violated when a local government displays and maintains on public property a 40-foot tall Latin cross, established in memory of soldiers who died in World War I. The district court determined that such government action does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause because the cross has a secular purpose, it neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it does not have the primary effect of endorsing religion.
We disagree. The monument here has the primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion. The Latin cross is the core symbol of Christianity. And here, it is 40 feet tall; prominently displayed in the center of one of the busiest intersections in Prince George’s County, Maryland; and maintained with thousands of dollars in government funds. Therefore, we hold that the purported war memorial breaches the “wall of separation between Church and State.” Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
I.
A.
In 1918, some Prince George’s County citizens started raising money to construct a giant cross, in addition to a previously established plaque, to honor 49 World War I soldiers from the county. The private organizers required each donor to sign a pledge sheet recognizing the existence of one god. It stated:
WE, THE CITIZENS OF MARYLAND, TRUSTING IN GOD, THE SUPREME RULER OF THE UNIVERSE, PLEDGE FAITH IN OUR BROTHERS WHO GAVE THEIR ALL IN THE WORLD WAR TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY. THEIR MORTAL BODIES HAVE TURNED TO DUST, BUT THEIR SPIRIT LIVES TO GUIDE US THROUGH LIFE IN THE WAY OF GODLINESS, JUSTICE, AND LIBERTY.
WITH OUR MOTTO, “ONE GOD, ONE COUNTRY AND ONE FLAG,” WE CONTRIBUTE TO THIS MEMORIAL CROSS COMMEMORATING THE MEMORY OF THOSE WHO HAVE NOT DIED IN VAIN.
J.A. 1168 (emphasis supplied).1 Local media described the proposed monument as a “mammoth cross, a likeness of the Cross of Calvary, as described in the Bible.”2 Id. at 1115. The private organizers held a groundbreaking ceremony on September 28,1919, at which time the city of Bladens-burg owned the land.
In 1922, the private organizers ran out of money and could not finish the project. So, the Snyder-Farmer Post of the American Legion (the “Post”) assumed responsibility. At its initial fundraising drive, the Post had a Christian prayer-led invocation. Later that same year, on Memorial Day, the Post held memorial services around the unfinished monument, at which a Christian chaplain led prayer, and those in attendance sang the Christian hymn “Nearer My God to Thee.” J.A. 2096. The Post ultimately completed the monument in 1925 and had Christian prayer services at the dedication ceremony, during which only Christian chaplains took part. No other religions were represented.
Upon completion, the monument at issue stood four stories tall in the shape of a Latin cross located in the median of a three-way highway intersection in Bla-densburg, Maryland (the “Cross”). Over the years, memorial services continued to occur on a regular basis at the Cross, and those services often included prayer at invocations and benedictions, and speaker-led prayers. Sunday worship services have at times been held at the Cross. Nothing in the record indicates that any of these services represented any faith other than Christianity.
On March 1, 1961, Appellee Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (the “Commission”), a state entity, obtained title to the Cross and the land on which it sits. According to the Commission, it acquired the Cross and land in part because of safety concerns arising from the placement of the Cross in the middle of a busy traffic median. Therefore, the Commission purports that it assumed responsibility to “maintain[], repair[], and otherwise car[e] for” the Cross. J.A. 2529. The Commission has since spent approximately $117,000 to maintain and repair the Cross, and in 2008, it set aside an additional $100,000 for renovations.
B.
Today, the 40-foot tall Cross is situated on a traffic island taking up one-third of an acre at the busy intersection of Maryland Route 450 and U.S. Route 1 in Bladensburg. The American Legion’s symbol—a small star inscribed with “U.S.”—is affixed near the top of the Cross, and an American flag flies in the vicinity of the Cross. The Cross sits on a rectangular base, with each side inscribed with one of four words: “valor,” “endurance,” “courage,” and “devotion.” J.A. 1963 (capitalization omitted). Additionally, one side of the base contains a two-foot tall, nine-foot wide plaque listing the names of the 49 soldiers from Prince George’s County whom the Cross memorializes, followed by a quote by President Woodrow Wilson.3 However, the plaque is located on only one side of the base, which bushes have historically obscured.4 Moreover, the plaque is badly weathered, rendering it largely illegible to passing motorists.
The Cross is part of a memorial park honoring veterans in Bladensburg (the “Veterans Memorial Park”). A small sign titled “Star-Spangled Banner National Historical Trail” is located on a walking path approximately 600 feet north of the Cross. This small sign—which, like the plaque at the base of the Cross, is not readily visible from the highway—serves as the only formal marker identifying the area as a memorial park by stating, “This crossroads has become a place for communities to commemorate their residents in service and in death.” J.A. 1870. The other monuments in the memorial park area include a War of 1812 memorial, a World War II memorial, a Korean and Vietnam veterans memorial, and a September 11th memorial walkway. These surrounding monument? are each located at least 200 feet away from the Cross, with the War of 1812 memorial located one-half mile away. No other monument in the area is taller than ten feet, and there are no other religious symbols in the park.
Beyond the above description of the Cross and its placement in the park, various photographs from the record depicting the Cross are attached to this opinion. See J.A. 34 (image of the- Cross before this case was filed), 1098 (closer image of the Cross), 1891 (image of the weathered plaque at the base of the Cross); Supp. J.A. 2 (overhead image of the Veterans Memorial Park).
II.
Appellants Steven Lowe, Fred Edwords, and Bishop McNeill are non-Christian residents of Prince George’s County who have faced multiple instances of unwelcome contact with the Cross. Specifically, as residents they have each regularly encountered the Cross while driving in the area,believe the display of the Cross amounts to governmental affiliation with Christianity, are offended by the prominent government display of the Cross, and wish to have no further contact with it. Per their complaint, they believe “a more fitting symbol of [veterans’] sacrifice would be a symbol of the Nation for which they fought and died, not a particular religion.” J.A. 25. Appellant American Humanist Association (“AHA”) is a nonprofit organization that advocates to uphold the founding, principle of separation of church and state. AHA is suing,on behalf of its members.5
As noted, Appellee Commission, a state entity, owns and maintains the Cross and the traffic island on which it stands. Appel-lees-Intervenors are the American Legion, the American Legion Department of Maryland, and the American Legion Colmar Manor Post 131 (collectively, “the Legion”).6 The Legion is a private organization focused on “Americanism” and the armed forces. J.A. 1469.
Appellants sued the Commission under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Commission’s display and maintenance of the Cross violates the Establishment- Clause. Appellants seek a declaratory judgment that this conduct violates the Establishment Clause and Appellants’ constitutional rights, an injunction enjoining the Commission from displaying the Cross on public property,7 nominal damages, and attorney’s fees and costs,
Appellants and Appellees filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment to Appellees. In doing so, the district court analyzed Appellants’ claim pursuant to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). It held the Commission owned the Cross and land for a legitimate secular reason, that is, to maintain the highway median. The district court also identified a second secular purpose, which is to commemorate the 49 World War I, soldiers from Prince George’s County.8
The district court next determined that the Cross neither advanced nor inhibited religion because (1) the Cross has been primarily used for veterans’ events; (2) crosses are generally regarded as commemorative symbols for World War I, at least overseas; (3) secular war memorials surround the Cross; and (4) the Cross has secular attributes, such as the Legion symbol on the face of the Cross. Finally, the district court concluded the Commission’s display and maintenance of the Cross did not amount to excessive entanglement with religion because the Cross was not a governmental endorsement of religion. At bottom, the district court viewed , the Commission’s maintenance of the Cross as relating to traffic safety and veteran commemoration rather than religion. Appellants timely appealed.
III.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Elderberry of Weber City, LLC v. Living Centers-Se., Inc., 794 F.3d 406, 411 (4th Cir. 2015). “In doing so, we apply the same legal standards as the district court, and view all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Cohen, 785 F.3d 886, 889 (4th Cir. 2015) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
IV.
Appellants contend that the Cross is a war memorial that favors Christians to the exclusion of all other religions. In response, Appellees frame Appellants’ claim as promoting a strict rule that crosses on government property are per se -unconstitutional, which they assert threatens memorials across the Nation.
As an initial matter, Appellees question whether Appellants have standing to bring this claim. They argue that Appellants have not “forgone any legal rights,” such as “the right to drive on the public highways running through [the] Veterans Memorial Park” “to avoid contact with the memorial.” Appellees’ Br. 46 n.12. Appellees’ standing argument lacks merit.
An Establishment Clause claim is justiciable even when plaintiffs claim noneconomic or intangible injury. See Suhre v. Haywood Cty., 131 F.3d 1083, 1086 (4th Cir. 1997); see also Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554, 582 (4th Cir.), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 2080, 198 L.Ed.2d 643 (2017). Specifically, in religious display cases, “unwelcome direct contact with a religious display that appears-to be endorsed by the state” is a sufficient injury to satisfy the standing inquiry. Suhre, 131 F.3d at 1086.
The non-AHA Appellants have standing because they allege specific unwelcome direct contact with the Cross; that is, they have each regularly encountered the Cross as residents while driving in the area, the Commission caused such injury by displaying the Cross, and the relief sought—enjoining the display of the Cross—would redress their injury. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); see also ACLU v. Rabun Cty. Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 698 F.2d 1098, 1108 (11th Cir. 1983) (determining one plaintiff had standing because a Latin cross was clearly visible from “the porch of his summer cabin” and from the roadway he-used to reach the cabin). The AHA also has standing. An association has standing-to sue on behalf of its members if they would have standing to sue on their own, the association seeks to protect interests germane to its purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires its individual members to participate in the lawsuit. See Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977); ACLU of Ohio Found., Inc. v. DeWeese, 633 F.3d 424, 429 (6th Cir. 2011). Here, the AHA has members in Prince George’s County who have faced unwelcome contact with the Cross. These interests are germane to the AHA’s purpose of maintaining the separation of church and state, and the claim and relief sought do not require individual participation. Appellants thus have standing to sue, and so we turn to the merits of this case.
The Establishment Clause provides, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....” U.S. Const, amend. I. This clause thus guarantees religious liberty and equality to people of all faiths. See Cty. of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 590, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989), abrogated on other grounds, Town of Greece v. Galloway, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 1811, 188 L.Ed.2d 835 (2014).
We have generally analyzed Establishment Clause issues pursuant to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). See Buxton v. Kurtinitis, 862 F.3d 423, 432 (4th Cir. 2017); Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Davidson Cty., 407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir. 2005); Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 370 (4th Cir. 2003). Per Lemon, to comply with the Establishment Clause, a challenged government display must (1) have a secular purpose; (2) not have a “principal or primary effect” that advances, inhibits, or endorses religion; and (3) not foster “an excessive entanglement between government and religion.” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 269-73 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105. “If a state action violates even one of these three prongs, that state action is unconstitutional.” Koenick v. Felton, 190 F.3d 259, 265 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing N.C. Civil Liberties Union Legal Found. v. Constangy, 947 F.2d 1145, 1147 (4th Cir. 1991)); see also Buxton, 862 F.3d at 432.
However, Appellees dispute Lemon’s application here, arguing that, instead, the Supreme Court’s holding in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005), controls. In Van Or-den, the Court addressed whether a monument displaying the Ten Commandments on government property violated the Establishment Clause. See 545 U.S. at 681, 125 S.Ct. 2854. The monument, located between the Texas Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court building, also displayed an eagle grasping the American flag, two Stars of David, Greek letters representing Christ, and an inscription indicating that a private organization donated the monument. See id. at 681-82, 125 S.Ct. 2854. The monument stood six-feet high and three-and-a-half feet wide, and sat among “17 monuments and 21 historical markers commemorating the people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity,” id. at 681, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (internal quotation marks omitted), such as monuments of the Heroes of the Alamo, the Texas National Guard, and the Texas Peace Officers, see Id. at 681 n.1, 125 S.Ct. 2854.
A plurality of the Court first decided the Lemon test is “not useful” in the “passive” monument context. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 686, 125 S.Ct. 2854. Rather, it examined the role and historical meanings of God and the Ten Commandments in our Nation’s history. See id. at 686-91, 125 S.Ct. 2854. The plurality first noted President George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789, which “directly attributed to the Supreme Being the foundations and successes of our young Nation,” as an example of the “unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.” Id. at 686-87, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 674, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984)). It also recognized “the role of God in our Nation’s heritage,” pointing to other Ten Commandment displays in federal buildings, including the Supreme Court’s own courtroom and the Library of Congress, which reinforced the secular connection between our Nation and the Ten Commandments. See id. at 687-89, 104 S.Ct. 1355. Though the Ten Commandments have religious significance, the plurality noted that the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, who “was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader.” Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 1355. Finally, the plurality viewed the placement of the monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds as “far more passive” when compared to other display cases, especially because the petitioner in Van Orden “walked by the monument for a number of years” before suing. Id. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 1355. Taking all of these considerations as a whole, the plurality concluded that the display in Van Orden did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Justice Breyer’s concurrence, however, is controlling because it is the narrowest ground upholding the majority. See Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977); A.T. Massey Coal Co. v. Massanari, 305 F.3d 226, 236 (4th Cir. 2002); see also Card v. City of Everett, 520 F.3d 1009, 1017 n.10 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting Justice Breyer’s concurrence controls); Staley v. Harris Co., 485 F.3d 305, 308 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007) (same); Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ., 650 F.3d 30, 49 (2d Cir. 2011) (same); ACLU v. Grayson Co., 591 F.3d 837, 847 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying Van Orden and relying primarily on Justice Breyer’s concurrence). The concurrence explains that courts should remain faithful to the “basic purposes” of the Establishment Clause by examining, for example, the circumstances surrounding the monument’s placement, its physical setting, and the length of time it remains unchallenged. Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 698, 700-03, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring). In addition, however, Justice Breyer clarified that the Lemon test continues to act as a “useful guidepost[ ]” in Establishment Clause cases involving monuments with both secular and sectarian meanings. Id. at 700, 125 S.Ct. 2854. The controlling Van Orden decision thus did not overrule Lemon; to the contrary, Justice Breyer actually recognized Lemon as a “more formal Establishment Clause test[ ].” Id. at 703, 125 S.Ct. 2854. And this court has consistently applied Lemon in religious display cases. See, e.g., Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 268-69; Smith v. Cty. of Albemarle, 895 F.2d 953, 958 (4th Cir. 1990). Thus, we see fit to apply Lemon in this case, with due consideration given to the Van Orden factors.
C.
For their part, Appellees assert Van Orden “dictates the outcome of this case,” and there is no Establishment Clause violation because (1) the Commission’s involvement relates to highway safety; (2) memorials surrounding the Cross commemorate veterans; and (3) the Cross has stood unchallenged for 90 years. Appellees’ Br. 21. But even under Lemon, Appellees contend that they prevail, particularly because the Cross’s “content, setting, and history make clear to a reasonable objective observer that its primary effect is commemoration, not religious endorsement.” Id. at 22. Therefore, Appellees argue that they prevail regardless of whether Van Orden or Lemon applies.
In support of their' argument to the contrary, Appellants primarily rely on Lemon’s, second prong—that is, the “effect of advancing religion.” Appellants highlight the Latin cross’s inherent religious message, the history' of religious activity involving the Cross, the Cross’s size and prominence, and its limited secular features. Appellants alternatively assert that the Cross is unconstitutional under Van Orden because the Latin cross lacks any connection to our Nation’s history, and the Cross’s physical setting undermines the Establishment Clause.
As explained above, we analyze this case pursuant to the thrée-prong test in Lemon with due consideration given to the factors outlined in Van Orden, mindful that a violation of even one prong of Lemon results in a violation of the Establishment Clause.
1.
Secular Purpose
Demonstrating a legitimate secular purpose is “a fairly low hurdle.” Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265, 276 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, government action having “dual legitimate purposes”—one secular and one sectarian—“cannot run afoul of the first Lemon prong.” Id. at 277.
The Commission has articulated legitimate secular purposes for displaying and maintaining the Cross that satisfy the first prong of Lemon. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 680-81, 104. S.Ct. 1355. The Commission obtained the Cross for a secular reason— maintenance of safety near a busy highway intersection. The Commission also preserves the memorial to honor World War I soldiers. Government preservation of a significant war memorial is a legitimate secular purpose. See Trunk v. City of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1099, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, the Commission has satisfied the first prong of Lemon.
2.
Effect
The second prong of Lemon requires this court to ask “whether a particular display, with religious content, would cause a reasonable observer to fairly understand it in its particular setting as impermissibly advancing or endorsing religion.” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 271. A “reasonable observer in the endorsement inquiry must be deemed aware of the history and context of the community and forum in which the religious speech takes place,” Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 119, 121 S.Ct. 2093, 160 L.Ed.2d 151 (2001) (alterations omitted) (quoting Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 779-80, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 132 L.Ed.2d 650 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). “Put differently, the effect prong asks whether, irrespective of government’s actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion,” Mellen, 327 F.3d at 374 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). This second prong therefore requires a detailed factual analysis of the Cross, including its meaning, history, and secularizing elements, and, where relevant, we consider the appropriate factors under Van Orden. See Trunk, 629 F.3d at 1110.
Meaning of the Latin Cross
The Latin cross is the “preeminent symbol of Christianity.” Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Robinson v. Cily of Edmond, 68 F.3d 1226, 1232 (10th Cir. 1995); Gonzales v. N. Twp. of Lake Cty., 4 F.3d 1412, 1418 (7th Cir. 1993); Murray v. City of Austin, 947 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1991); ACLU v. Rabun Cty. Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 698 F.2d 1098, 1110 (11th Cir. 1983). Indeed, the Latin cross is “exclusively a Christian symbol, and not a symbol of any other religion.” Trunk, 629 F.3d at 1111 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Buono, 371 F.3d at 545; Gonzales, 4 F.3d at 1418 (“[W]e are masters of the obvious, and we know that the crucifix is a Christian symbol.”). Notwithstanding the Latin cross’s inherent religious meaning, the district court concluded that it is also a symbol of World War I, particularly overseas. Specifically, the district court concluded that the Cross at issue here evokes the image of white crosses on foreign battle fields. For this proposition, it cites the Legion’s , expert witness report, which states that “the symbolism of the cross is that of individual loss of life, not of the Resurrection [of Jesus Christ].” J.A. 1898.
While the Latin cross may generally serve as a symbol of death and memorialization, it only holds value as a symbol of death and resurrection because óf its affiliation with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. See Carpenter v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, 93 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The Latin cross is the preeminent symbol of many Christian religions and represents with relative clarity and simplicity the Christian message of .the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, a doctrine at the heart of Christianity” (internal quotation marks omitted)); ACLU v. City of St. Charles, 794 F.2d 265, 273 (7th Cir. 1986) (“It is the principal symbol of the Christian religion, recalling the crucifixion,of Jesus Christ and the redeeming benefits of his passion and death” (internal quotation marks omitted)). One simply cannot ignore the fact that for thousands of years the Latin cross has represented Christianity.- Even in the : memorial context, a Latin cross serves not simply as a generic symbol of death, but rather a Christian symbol of the death of Jesus Christ.9 Further, even if other countries may identify the Latin cross as a commemorative symbol óf World War I, that acknowledgment does not dictate our analysis.' Indeed, crosses used on World War I battlefields were individual—rather than universal—memorials to the íivés of Christian soldiers.10 And this Nation, unlike others, maintains a clearly defined wall between church and state that “must be kept high and impregnable.” Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 18, 67 S.Ct.504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947). Thus, the manner in which other countries view the Latin cross is of.no moment.
Further, a Latin cross differs from other religious monuments, such as the Ten Commandments or the motto “In God We Trust.” Those symbols are well known as being tied to our Nation’s history and government, and courts have thus upheld their public display. See, e.g., Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 688, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (noting the secular role of the Ten Commandments in American history); Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 271-72 (acknowledging the ties between American history and the motto “In God We Trust”). Appellees have not sufficiently demonstrated that the Latin cross has a similar connection.
History of the Cross
Though the history of the Latin cross favors Appellants, the history of the particular Cross before us does not clearly support one party over the other. On the one hand, the initial donors to the memorial fund signed a pledge professing a belief in God, and the Cross has been the scene of Christian activities, such as Sunday worship services and group prayer at invocations and benedictions. On the other hand, private organizations raised money to erect the Cross, it has a scattered history of religious use, and it has primarily hosted veteran-focused ceremonies. Thus, when viewed through the lens of not only Lemon, but also of Van Orden, the circumstances surrounding the Cross’s placement admittedly point to a semisecular history. See Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 701, 125 S.Ct. 2854.
It is also true that the Cross has stood unchallenged for 90 years, which Appellees argue reinforces its secular effect. See Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 702, 125 S.Ct. 2854. But that argument is too simplistic. In this case, it cannot be said that “the longer the violation, the less violative it becomes.” Gonzales, 4 F.3d at 1422 (rejecting the argument that nearly 40 years without challenging a crucifix reinforced its secular effect).11 Perhaps the longer a violation persists, the greater the affront to those offended. The Cross’s history therefore does not definitively aid either side in the analysis.
Secular Elements
Admittedly, the Cross contains a few secular elements. As support for them position, Appellees point to the plaque at the base of the Cross that contains the names of the 49 soldiers from Prince George’s County whose lives were lost in World War I; the Legion symbol; the words “val- or,” “endurance,” “courage,” and “devotion” inscribed on its base; an American flag flying in its vicinity; and its location in the Veterans Memorial Park. Appellees maintain that the plaque and symbols diminish any government endorsement of religion.
But the sectarian elements easily overwhelm the secular ones. The Cross is by far the most prominent monument in the area, conspicuously displayed at a busy intersection, standing four stories tall, and overshadowing the other monuments, the tallest of which is only ten feet tall and located approximately 200 feet from the Cross. The other monuments composing the Veterans Memorial Park are anywhere from 200 feet away to a half-mile away. The immense size and prominence of the Cross necessarily “evokes a message of aggrandizement and universalization of religion, and not the message of individual memorialization and remembrance that is presented by a field of gravestones.” Trunk, 629 F.3d at 1116 n.18 (citation omitted).
In addition, the Cross is not located in an area where one could easily park, walk to the Cross, and examine the plaque.12 Rather, the Cross is located in a high-traffic area, and passers-by would likely be unable to read the plaque, particularly given its location on only one side of the Cross,13 and the fact that both the plaque and the American Legion symbol are badly weathered, not to mention that the American Legion symbol is small in comparison to the overall size of the Cross. We also cannot ignore the American Legion’s affiliation with Christianity, as gleaned from its prayer manuals and the “Four Pillars of the American Legion.” J.A. 1469.14 And, when we consider the physical setting of the Cross pursuant to Van Orden, Appellees’ arguments are equally unavailing. See 545 U.S. at 702, 125 S.Ct. 2854. The Cross’s location on public property at a busy traffic intersection, the small size and scattered locations of the surrounding monuments, plus the fact that bushes have obscured the plaque for much of its history, see, e.g., J.A. 34 (photograph of the Cross before this case was filed), all point to a violative display. See Am. Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F.3d 1095, 1121 (10th Cir. 2010) (“The fact that the [12-foot tall] cross includes biographical information about [a] fallen trooper does not diminish the governmental message endorsing Christianity. This is especially true because a motorist driving by one of the memorial crosses at 55-plus miles per hour may not notice, and certainly would not focus on, the biographical information.”).
Thus, we- conclude that the historical meaning and physical setting of the Cross overshadows its secular elements. Other courts presented with similar situations have concluded likewise. See, e.g., Trunk, 629 F.3d at 1123 (concluding a 43-foot Latin cross, though purporting to serve as a war memorial, overshadowed its secular aspects, which included a plaque and 2,100 commemorative bricks); Gonzales, 4 F.3d at 1422-23 (determining that an 18-foot wooden crucifix advanced religion, despite containing a plaque dedicating it to veterans, because the plaque was obscured); Smith, 895 F.2d at 958 (concluding & creche15 on government property violated the Establishment Clause in part because a plaque stating its private sponsorship was “relatively small ... in relation to the whole" display, thus “mitigating] [the plaque’s] value”).
According to the dissent, our analysis bases the unconstitutionality of the Cross “predominantly on the size of the cross,” without fairly weighing its “appearance, context, and factual background.” Post at 219 (emphasis omitted). This is not accurate. Although we are of the opinion that the size of a religious display does matter, we have also carefully considered the other factors required by Lemon and Van Orden. See Part IV.C.2.a (analyzing context and meaning); Part IV.C.2.b (factual background and history); Part IV.C.2.C (appearance). We are confident that we have fully complied with our “constitutional directive.” Post at 219.
d.
Reasonable Observer
Considering the factors above, we conclude that a. reasonable observer would fairly understand the Cross to have the primary effect of endorsing religion.'We do not disagree with the dissent’s characterization of the “reasonable observer” as someone who is not just an “ordinary individual” but “aware of the history and context of the community and forum in which the religious display appears.” Post at 220 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 271-72 (quoting Good News Club, 533 U.S. at 119, 121 S.Ct. 2093 (citation omitted)). In fact, Appellees at oral argument reaffirmed that the reasonable observer is aware, of the entire context and history of the Cross, spanning from its origin to the present. See Oral Argument at 18:04-19:00, Am. Humanist Assoc. v. Maryland-Nat’l Capital-Park. & Planning Comm’n, No. 15-2597, http:// www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/ listen-to-oral-arguments (Dec. 7, 2016).
Accordingly, a reasonable observer would know that the Cross is dedicated to 49 World War I veterans and that veteran services occur at the Cross. But, more importantly, a reasonable observer would also know that the. private organizers pledged devotion to faith in God, and that same observer knows that Christian-only religious activities have taken place at the Cross. No party has come forward with any evidence to the contrary. Although the reasonable observer may recognize that the Cross is located in the Veterans Memorial Park, such reasonable observer also could not help but note that the Cross is the most prominent monument in the Park and the only one displaying ’ a religious symbol. Further, the reasonable observer would know that a Latin cross generally represents Christianity. These factors collectively weigh in favor of concluding that the Cross endorses Christianity—not only above all other faiths, but also to their exclusion.
The Commission and supporting amici equate the Cross to the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery and similar locations. They raise concerns that siding with Appellants here would jeopardize other memorials across the Nation displaying crosses, laying waste to such memorials nationwide. Any such concern is misplaced. Establishment Clause cases are fact-specific, and our decision is confined to the unique facts at hand. See McCreary Cty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 867-68, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005) (recognizing the relevant inquiry is based on the specific facts before the Court); Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 700, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (acknowledging the “fact-intensive” nature of religious display cases); Card, 520 F.3d at 1014; Staley, 485 F.3d at 309; O’Connor v. Washburn Univ., 416 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir. 2005).
In any event, Arlington National Cemetery is a designated area for commemorating and memorializing veterans who have passed away.16 The crosses there are much smaller than the 40-foot tall monolith at issue here. And, significantly, Arlington National Cemetery displays diverse religious symbols, both as monuments and on individual headstones.17 Contrast that -with the Cross here. There are no other religious symbols present on the Cross or in the entirety of the Veterans Memorial Park. Christianity is singularly—and overwhelmingly—represented. Therefore, the second prong of Lemon is violated.
3.
Excessive Entanglement
We turn now to the. third prong of the Lemon test—whether the government display creates “an excessive entanglement between government and religion.” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 272-73 (internal quotation marks omitted). Excessive entanglement with religion “is a question of kind and degree.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 684, 104 S.Ct. 1355. Such entanglement may include “pervasive monitoring or other maintenance by public authorities ” Lambeth, 407 F.3d at 273 (citations omitted). Spending public funds, though a factor in the analysis, is not necessary for a plaintiff to satisfy the entanglement prong. See Constangy, 947 F.2d at 1152. Indeed, excessive entanglement may lie simply where the government’s entanglement has the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 232-33, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997).
We hold there is excessive religious entanglement in this case for two reasons. First, the Commission owns and maintains the Cross, which is displayed on government property. The Commission has spent at least $117,000 to maintain the Cross and has set aside an additional $100,000 for restoration. Other cases holding that displays violate the Establishment Clause have involved de minimis government spending, if any. See Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 623, 108 S.Ct. 2562, 101 L.Ed,2d 520 (1988) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“[A]ny use' of public funds to promote religious doctrines violates the Establishment Clause.” (emphasis omitted)).18 Second, displaying the Cross, particularly given its size, history, and context, amounts to excessive entanglement because the Commission is displaying the hallmark symbol of Christianity in a manner that dominates its surroundings and not only overwhelms all other monuments at the park, but also excludes all other religious tenets. The display aggrandizes the Latin cross in a manner that says to any reasonable observer -that the Commission either places Christianity above other faiths, views-being American and Christian as one in the same, or both. Therefore, the third prong of Lemon is also violated. We note, however, that because the Cross is unconstitutional under the effect prong, the excessive entanglement prong here merely provides an alternative indicator of the Cross’s unconstitutionality.
4.
Conclusion
The Commission’s display of the Cross fails the second and third prongs of Lemon, and the Van Orden factors are unsupportive of Appellees’ position in this case. The display and maintenance of the Cross violates the Establishment Clause.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
REVERSED AND REMANDED.19
APPENDIX
[[Image here]]
(J.A. 34)20
(J.A. 1098)21
(J.A. 1891)22
(Supp. J.A. 2)23
As referenced in footnote 17, images of headstones in Arlington National Cemetery adorned with diverse religious symbols, identified from top left to bottom right: . Soka Gakkai, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, Catholicism, United Church of Christ, Judaism, and Atheism. Arlington National Cemetery, https://pbs. twimg.com/media/CUa2t63VEAEoIfE.jpg.