Town of Greece v. Galloway: U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Legislative Prayer and the Establishment Clause

by Sands Anderson PC
Contact

Today, the Court handed down its ruling in Town of Greece.  In a sweeping ruling, the Court upheld the local government’s religious invocations in a 5-4 decision.  The ruling pretty dramatically and explicitly broadens the scope of permissible religious invocations for legislative sessions.

Virginia Locality Law Blog highlighted the US Supreme Court case Town of Greece v. Galloway almost a year ago when the Court granted cert in this important Establishment Clause case affecting thousands of state and local government legislative bodies around the country. We noted that the case had the opportunity to rewrite the legal landscape for legislative prayer.  That has now come to pass.

Legislative bodies around the country will want to closely examine Town of Greece to determine whether their current practices comport with the newly-articulated Establishment Clause principles.  Of course, central to the Court’s ruling is the notion that much of what has been historically done in this field is permissible precisely because the weight of history supports legislative prayer practices.  The case resulted in 80 pages worth of opinions.  Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, although portions of his opinion garnered only a plurality of votes.

Justice Kennedy Rationale That Garnered a Majority of the Court

1.  The Lemon and Endorsement tests are inapplicable to legislative prayer cases: “Marsh[v. Chambers],  stands for the proposition that it is not necessary to define the precise boundary of the Establishment Clause where history shows that the specific practice is permitted. Any test the Court adopts must acknowledge a practice that was accepted by the Framers and has withstood the critical scrutiny of time and political change.” (citations omitted).

2. Legislative prayers do not need to be religiously neutral: “To hold that invocations must be nonsectarian would force the legislatures that sponsor prayers and the courts that are asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of religious speech, a rule that would involve government in religious matters to a far greater degree than is the case under the town’s current practice of neither editing or approving prayers in advance nor criticizing their content after the fact.   Our Government is prohibited from prescribing prayers to be recited in our public institutions in order to promote a preferred system of belief or code of moral behavior.  It would be but a few steps removed from that prohibition for legislatures to require chaplains to redact the religious content from their message in order to make it acceptable for the public sphere. Government may not mandate a civic religion that stifles any but the most generic reference to the sacred any more than it may prescribe a religious orthodoxy. See Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577, 590 (1992) (“The suggestion that government may establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specificcreeds strikes us as a contradiction that cannot be ac- cepted”); Schempp, 374 U. S., at 306 (Goldberg, J., concurring) (arguing that “untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality” must not lead to “a brooding and pervasivedevotion to the secular”),” (some citations omitted).

Justice Kennedy Rationale that Garnered Only a Plurality of the Court

1. Solemn invocations of prayer are permissible.  Proselytization or denigration is not: “If the course and practice over time shows that the invocations denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion, many present may consider the prayer to fall short of the desire to elevate the purpose of the occasion and to unite lawmakers in their common effort. That  circumstance would present a different case than the one presently before the Court.”

2. Isolated instances of prayers that disparage other religions do not make the practice of legislative prayer unconstitutional: “Respondents point to other invocations that disparaged those who did not accept the town’s prayer practice. One guest minister characterized objectors as a “minority” who are ‘ignorant of the history of our country,’ while another lamented that other towns did not have ‘God-fearing’ leaders.  Although these two remarks strayed from the rationale set out in Marsh, they do not despoil a practice that on the whole reflects and embraces our tradition. Absent a pattern of prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible government purpose, a challenge based solely on the content of a prayer will not likely establish a constitutional violation. Marsh, indeed, requires an inquiry into the prayer opportunity as a whole, rather than into the contents of a single prayer.”

3. Legislative prayer is permissible in part because it is for the benefit of legislators and not for the benefit of, or to coerce, the public: “The analysis would be different if town board members directed the public to participate in the prayers, singled out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicated that their decisions might be influenced by a person’s acquiescence in the prayer opportunity. No such thing occurred in the town of Greece. Although board members themselves stood, bowed their heads, or made the sign of the cross during the prayer, they at no point solicited similar gestures by the public.”

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, concurred in the Justice Kennedy’s result, but wrote separately to make two points.  First, Justice Thomas argued that the Establishment Clause and the First Amendment are properly read as constraints on the Congress, not on the States and the line of cases incorporating the Establishment Clause into the Fourteenth Amendment’s restrictions on the States may be in error.  “Incorporation therefore gives rise to a paradoxical result: Applying the Clause against the States eliminates their right to establish a religion free from federal interference, thereby “prohibit[ing] exactly what the Establishment Clause protected.”

Justice Thomas also reasoned that to the extent the Establishment Clause has been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment’s restrictions against the States, it bars only “legal” coercion in favor of an establishment of religion: “Thus, to the extent coercion is relevant to the Establishment Clause analysis, it is actual legal coercion thatcounts—not the ‘subtle coercive pressures’ allegedly felt by respondents in this case.”

Justice Kagan, author of the principal dissent, would have ruled the Town of Greece religious invocations unconstitutional on the grounds that the practice in this case was overtly sectarian, exclusive to religious minorities, and because the nature of town council meetings is such that citizens who go to them seeking some governmental action or benefit might feel coerced to participate in the council’s religious observance.  While legislative prayer is entitled to some deference, Justice Kagan reasoned, that deference should not extend to the much broader religious practices in this case:

“Relying on that “unbroken” national tradition, Marsh upheld (I think correctly) the Nebraska Legislature’spractice of opening each day with a chaplain’s prayer as “a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.” Id., at 792. And so I agree with the majority that the issue here is “whether the prayer practice in the Town of Greece fits within the tradition long followed in Congress and the state legislatures.” Ante, at 9. Where I depart from the majority is in my reply to that question. The town hall here is a kind of hybrid. Greece’s Board indeed has legislative functions, as Congress and state assemblies do—and that means some opening prayers are allowed there. But much as in my hypotheticals, the Board’s meetings are also occasions for ordinary citizens to engage with and petition their government, often on highly individualized matters. That feature calls for Board members to exercise special care to ensure that the prayers offered are inclusive—that they respect each and every member of the community as an equal citizen.  But the Board, and the clergy members it selected, made no such effort. Instead, the prayers given in Greece, addressed directly to the Town’s citizenry, were more sectarian, and less inclusive, than anything this Court sustained in Marsh. For those reasons, the prayer in Greece departs from the legislative tradition that the majority takes as its benchmark. (internal citations and footnote omitted).”

In sum, Town of Greece dramatically alters the landscape for evaluating the permissibility of legislative prayer invocations.  Several legal lessons seem clear:

  1. The Court will be broadly tolerant of religious legislative invocations, even those that explicitly favor a single religion.
  2. No Justice of the Court undertook to apply Lemon v. Kurtzman or the Endorsement test to this case, although Justice Breyer cited Lemon favorably, but only for the rationale of that case and not for its famous three-pronged (secular purpose, effect of enforcing or prohibiting a religious practice, excessive entanglement between religion and government).
  3. Five Justices of the Court accepted the idea that examination of legislative prayer’s historical antecedents is a reasonable measure by which to gauge its permissibility.  Indeed, the entire Court reaffirmed the vitality of Marsh v. Chambers which first approved legislative prayers.
  4. Seven Justices hold to the view that even intangible coercion in legislative prayer may, in a future case, violate the Establishment Clause.

How does this impact Virginia and North Carolina local goverments?

The Fourth Circuit has previously handed down what is essentially a non-sectarian mandate in Joyner v. Forsyth County, 653 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2011), and similar cases.  This decision has been problematic for local governments, and has lead to reviewing and editing of prayers, and instructing religious leaders not to pray to their chosen deity.  The Town of Greece v. Galloway opinion seems to overrule the notion that sectarian language and references to a specific deity is a problem, so long as overall policy is non-discriminatory and the prayers are neither proselytizing nor denegrating, taken as a whole.  It may well be that the non-discriminatory policy of the local government in Forsyth County, very similar to the Town of Greece policy, might well pass muster if considered under the new U.S. Supreme Court test in Galloway for legislative prayer.

Local and State government entities with legislative functions ought to examine their procedures and policies in connection with religious invocations in light of Town of Greece and consider well this new opinion’s effect on Forsyth County and other Fourth Circuit cases addressing legislative prayer.  This is a big change in this area of law.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sands Anderson PC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Sands Anderson PC
Contact
more
less

Sands Anderson PC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.