Between the PA and GA federal court rulings, this looks like it's shaping up to be your classic circuit split. When the federal circuit courts of appeal disagree on an issue (being guided by how the Supreme Court would rule -- WWSCD
), it is the classic instance of a grant of certiorari (i.e. the Supreme Court deciding to hear the case).
This could well be on the calendar next spring for the Supreme Court, assuming the federal circuits both stick to their prior rulings (GA's only went up to the circuit for an injunction, IIRC, not on the merits of the case yet). Now, the Sup. Ct. may take up the cases only to point out factual distinctions that mean both cases interpreted the law correctly as applied to differing factual scenarios. What are such differences? Well, for one, in PA the proponent and installer of the monument wasn't arguing for a right to recognize religion. Ergo, in one instance it was not an attempt to establish religion, merely preserve an historic landmark, whereas in the other it was a federal government judge actively and voiciferously trying to establish a repsect of religion, which the law shall not do.