NO.

11-546
In the

Supreme Court of the United States

FORSYTH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, v.
Petitioner,

JANET JOYNER AND C ONSTANCE LYNNE BLACKMON,

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

BRIEF OF SENATOR GEORGE E. CHIP CAMPSEN AND 26 OTHER SENATORS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

J.R. MURPHY Counsel of Record TIMOTHY J. NEWTON MURPHY & GRANTLAND, P.A. 4406-B Forest Drive Columbia, SC 29206 (803) 782-4100 jrmurphy@murphygrantland.com Counsel for Amici Curiae
November 30, 2011

Becker Gallagher Cincinnati, OH Washington, D.C. 800.890.5001

i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................... 2 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 4 Legal Background ...................................................... 5 I. THE FOURTH CIRCUITS OPINION CREATES A SPLIT IN THE CIRCUITS. ......................................... 8
OF AND A

II. IMPOSITION
IMPLEMENTING

NONSECTARIAN
SUCH A

STANDARD CREATES A HOST OF PROBLEMS IN ENFORCING POLICY. .................................................................. 9

A. Inappropriateness of state direction of the content of invocational prayers ............. 10 B. Lack of a clear standard as to what constitutes sectarian prayer...................... 13 C. Uncertainty in enforcement of a ban on sectarian prayers ...................................... 19 D. How many sectarian references are too many? ..................................................... 22 III. QUESTIONS
EXIST AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT SPEECH AND LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM. ...................................... 23

ii CONCLUSION ......................................................... 26 APPENDIX: Appendix A: List of Senators joining as amici ........ 1a Appendix B: Challenges to Public Invocations ....... 3a

iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Adler v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 250 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2000) .......................... 10, 24 Bacus v. Palo Verde Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 52 Fed. Appx. 355 (9th Cir. 2002) ................ 16 Berman v. U.S., 156 F.2d 377 (9th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 795 (1946), rehg denied, 329 U.S. 833 (1947) .................................................. 20 Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202 (3rd Cir. 2004) .......................................................... 24 Bd. of Educ. of Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens By & Through Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) ........................................................................ 24 Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 171 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 1999) .......................................................... 15 County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, et al., 492 U.S. 573 (1989) ...................................... 7, 8 Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F. Supp. 2d 524 (D. Del. 2010), revd on other grounds, 653 F.3d 256 (3rd Cir. 2011) ................................ 8, 15

iv Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 473 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 2006), revd on rehearing en banc on other grounds, 494 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2007) ......................................................................... 15 E.E.O.C. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, N.C., 48 F. Supp. 2d 505 (E.D.N.C. 1999) ......................................................................... 17 Employment Div., Dept. of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) ..................... 24 Galloway v. Town of Greece, 732 F. Supp. 2d 195 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) ...................................... 8, 11, 14 Hinrichs v. Bosma, 440 F.3d 393 (7th Cir. 2006), revd on hearing en banc on other grounds, 506 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2008)..................... 15 Joyner v. Forsyth County, N.C., 653 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2011) .................................................. passim Joyner v. Forsyth County, No. 1:07-CV-243, 2009 WL 3787754 at *5 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2009) ......................................................................... 23 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)............... passim Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) ................. 7 Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) ............ 21, 25 Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) ........ passim

v Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Georgia, 547 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2008) ....................................... passim Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) ................................................... 23, 25 Rubin v. City of Burbank, 101 Cal. App. 4th 1194 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) ............................. 14, 15, 16 Rubin v. City of Lancaster, No. CV 10-4046DSF (JCx), 2011 WL 2790273 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2011) ..................................................... 8, 9, 11, 14 Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) ...................................... 15, 19, 20 Simpson v. Chesterfield County Bd. of Suprs, 404 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2005) .................................... 18 Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 159 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 1998) .................................................. 11, 19 State v. Weedman, 226 N.W. 348 (S.D. 1929) ......... 15 Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822 F.2d 1406 (6th Cir. 1987) ......................................... 15 Turner v. City Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, 534 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2008) ................................................ 12, 16, 22, 23 Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) ............ 6, 19

vi Walz v. Tax Commn of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 669 (1970) ........................................... 11, 17 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) ................. 21 Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, South Carolina, 376 F.3d 292, 300 (4th Cir. 2004) ........... 15 Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) ............ 16, 17 Constitutional Provisions: U.S. CONST. amend. I ............................. 10, 12, 18, 20 Legislative Materials: S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-160 (Supp. 2010)...................... 5 S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-160(B)(3) .................................. 9 Other Authorities: John 16:23 ................................................................ 12 John 14:13-14 ........................................................... 13 John 15:16 ................................................................ 13 Ephesians 5:20 ......................................................... 13 Colossians 3:17 ......................................................... 13

vii Meriam-Webster online, available at http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/sect ..................................... 15 WXII12.com, Republicans, Democrats Disagree With Sectarian Prayer Ban, Poll Says, available at http://www.wxii12.com/news/24424727/detail. html .......................................................................... 18 EDWARD D. RE, THE ROMAN CONTRIBUTION TO COMMON LAW, 29 Fordham L. Rev. 447, 474 (1961) ..................................................... 19, 20, 21

THE

MIKE MACNAIR, EQUITY AND CONSCIENCE, 27 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 659, 669 (2007) ..................... 20

1 INTEREST OF THE AMICI

1

SENATOR GEORGE E. CHIP CAMPSEN, III is the state senator for District 43 in the State of South Carolina. SENATOR CAMPSEN authored the South Carolina Public Invocation Act, which provides authority for state boards and commissions to adopt ordinances allowing invocations to open public meetings. The provisions of the South Carolina Public Invocation Act are substantially similar to the policy adopted by the Forsyth County. The Public Invocation Act was enacted to provide guidance for state legislative bodies to comply with applicable law governing invocations. The legislative intent of the Public Invocation Act was to help deliberative bodies become aware of both the settled and unsettled issues in the law governing legislative invocations, and to assist them in making informed decisions so the policies they adopt will pass constitutional scrutiny. The interests of the senators, as named in Appendix A to this brief, joining as amici in this brief are consistent with the interests of SENATOR CAMPSEN.

Counsel of record for all parties received timely notice of the amici curiaes intention to file this brief. All parties of record consented to the filing of amicus briefs in support of either or neither party. Amici state that no portion of this brief was authored by counsel for a party and that no person or entity other than amici or their counsel made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.

2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT This Court has recognized the long history and tradition of legislative invocations and allowed them, provided they are not exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 794-95 (1983). The Fourth Circuit in this case imposed an additional requirement that the prayers must be nonsectarian in nature. The Fourth Circuits opinion highlights a circuit split and confusion as to the applicable standard. Legislative bodies are facing an onslaught of legal challenges which are forcing many legislative bodies to curtail their practice of invocations or abandon the practice altogether. In the past ten years, over 100 such legal challenges have been reported in the news media. (See Appendix B.) Amici would show that this Court should grant certiorari due to the split in the circuits as to the standard for legislative invocations. Amici would further show that imposition of a nonsectarian standard creates a host of problems for implementing and enforcing such a policy. This Court has recognized that it is not the business of the government to control the content of invocational prayers. Not only does this create Establishment Clause problems, it interferes with the rights of the people to recognize and pray to a Supreme Being over which human government exercises no authority.

3 The split in the circuits illustrates the difficulty in defining a nonsectarian standard. Efforts to impose such a standard have focused on particularized censorship of the name of Jesus Christ. This creates a perception of government hostility to a particular group of religious adherents and entangles the state in religious discrimination. Other efforts at such line-drawing have failed to reach a consensus, and some courts have expressed dismay at the thought of attempting to determine what is sectarian and what is not. Imposing a nonsectarian standard also creates problems in enforcing such a ban. Devout religious believers may perceive a nonsectarian standard as infringing on their religious liberty, inviting civil disobedience. Moreover, there is no clear standard as to how sectarian references are to be counted and how many such references would violate the Fourth Circuits frequency test. Finally, questions exist as to the relationship, if any, between legislative invocations and principles relating to limited public fora, private speech, and government speech. Invocations most likely trigger at least some measure of constitutional protection of the freedoms of speech and free exercise of religion, but recent cases have called the parameters of these liberties into doubt. Guidance is needed to resolve these questions in the face of a continuing barrage of legal challenges.

4 ARGUMENT Beginning in colonial times and continuing through the foundation of the United States of America, legislative bodies have begun meetings with invocations. The practice of legislative invocations is firmly established in American history and has been upheld by this Court. But in recent years this well-established tradition has come under attack. Around the country legislative bodies are facing a barrage of challenges to invocations. (See CHALLENGES TO PUBLIC INVOCATIONS, Appendix B.) Over 100 challenges to legislative invocations have been reported in the news media since 2002. (Id.) Of these, many have resulted in litigation or forced legislative bodies to change their policies regarding invocations. (Id.) The uncertainty in the law has led some legislative bodies to simply abandon the practice of having invocations altogether. (Id.) Attempting to craft legislation and policies regarding invocations is difficult because of the split in the circuits. Moreover, questions have arisen as to whether the same standard applies to legislative bodies at all governmental levels. South Carolinas Public Invocation Act, reflected an attempt by the State of South Carolina to offer guidance to legislative bodies and political subdivisions due to the number of legal challenges. It was enacted in a good faith attempt to comply with constitutional law. The goal of the Public Invocation Act is to help assure state deliberative bodies desiring invocations to implement a procedure

5 that passes constitutional scrutiny, and to avoid Establishment Clause litigation. Legislative bodies need clarity in the law in order to frame their policies for legislative invocations. The uncertainty in the law needlessly involves legislative bodies in disputes, burdening the taxpayers. Additionally, the wave of challenges has a nuisance value function which serves to effectively align government policy with those who would discourage the process, despite the well-established constitutionality of legislative invocations. This Court should grant certiorari to resolve the applicable standard. Legal background Since 1983 constitutional law on the subject of legislative invocations has been defined by Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). The procedure adopted by Forsyth County in this case reflected an attempt to comply with the Marsh standard. Likewise, the State of South Carolina has enacted the Public Invocation Act, authored by SENATOR CAMPSEN, which is substantially similar to the procedure adopted by Forsyth County. See S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-160 (Supp. 2010). Because the Fourth Circuit opinion in this case implicates South Carolinas Public Invocation Act, SENATORS GEORGE E. CHIP CAMPSEN, III and other South Carolina senators join as Amici Curie in support of Forsyth Countys Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The undersigned Senators would show that granting certiorari in this case would

6 serve to resolve a split in the circuits and to clarify the legal standard for legislative invocations. The Fourth Circuit required that legislative invocations must be nonsectarian in nature, a requirement upon which courts are split. The Marsh opinion expressly held that it is not for courts to parse the content of prayer so long as there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 794-95. In Marsh, the majority did not base its holding on a determination that the prayers at issue were nonsectarian in nature. See Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Georgia, 547 F.3d 1263, 1271 (11th Cir. 2008). The Court noted that all references to Christ had been removed after a complaint from a Jewish legislator a year after suit was filed, but before that the invocations were Christian in nature. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 793 n.14; Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 688 n.8 (2005). This Court rejected the argument that the presence of explicitly Christian prayers in the Judeo-Christian tradition violated the Establishment clause. Id. This Court has not addressed the outer limits of the freedom of conscience of clergymen when leading in invocations at legislative sessions. Indeed, this Court has not directly addressed legislative invocations at all since Marsh. The Fourth Circuit has imposed a nonsectarian standard, particularly indicating that such prayers must not mention the name of Jesus

7 or Christ. Joyner v. Forsyth County, N.C., 653 F.3d 341, 348 (4th Cir. 2011) (explaining that under the Fourth Circuits standard, legislative prayer is approved only when it is nonsectarian in both policy and practice). The Fourth Circuits standard is derived from dicta in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, et al., 492 U.S. 573, 603 (1989). Allegheny did not concern legislative prayer. It was decided under the more stringent standard set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), a test which was not applied to legislative invocations in Marsh. See Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1269 (explaining that the majority in Marsh rejected the Eighth Circuits application of the Lemon standard). Moreover, a careful reading of Allegheny does not indicate an attempt to limit Marshs holding. This Court merely pointed out that the prayers in Marsh did not have the effect of affiliating the government with any one specific faith or belief because all references to Christ had been removed. Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 603. Thus, Allegheny did not address the question of whether invocational prayers by clergymen which refer to Christ could nonetheless result in something less than effectively affiliating the government with a particular faith or belief. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuits holding imposes a stricter standard and has created confusion through a strained reading of Allegheny.

8 I. The Fourth Circuits opinion creates a split in the Circuits.

Forsyth County is not alone in finding the Fourth Circuits holding contradictory to the rule in other circuits. The confusion in the law with regard to the imposition of a nonsectarian standard on legislative invocations has been ably documented by several courts. See Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1271-74 (11th Cir. 2008) (canvassing the law in other circuits and concluding that there is no clear consensus among our sister circuits about sectarian references in legislative prayer); Galloway v. Town of Greece, 732 F. Supp. 2d 195, 225-38 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). (reviewing the case law at length and concluding that no Supreme Court precedent addressed the precise issue before the court and that the circuit courts are divided); Rubin v. City of Lancaster, No. CV 10-4046-DSF (JCx), 2011 WL 2790273 at *6 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2011) (explaining that cases since Marsh have not reached a consensus); Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 685 F. Supp. 2d 524, 534 (D. Del. 2010), revd on other grounds, 653 F.3d 256 (3rd Cir. 2011) (recognizing that other courts have reached different conclusions on the issue). In Galloway, the court specifically opined that it disagreed with the Fourth Circuit standard. Galloway, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 243. The opposing positions are set forth in Rubin. On the one hand are those who interpret Allegheny to impose a blanket prohibition on sectarian prayer, if prayer is permitted at all. Rubin, 2011 WL 2790273 at *6. In the opposing camp are those who interpret Marsh to allow sectarian prayers, so long

9 as they are not exploited to proselytize or advance or disparage a particular religious belief. Id. The Fourth Circuits opinions place it in the former camp, as discussed below. Id. The bright-line rule of nonsectarianism conflicts with the Marsh mandate that courts should not embark on a sensitive evaluation or . . . parse the content of a particular prayer. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 794. It is therefore appropriate for this Court to grant certiorari to resolve the split among the circuits. II. Imposition of a nonsectarian standard creates a host of problems in implementing and enforcing such a policy. Setting aside the technical distinctions involved in viewing the question in the abstract, it is appropriate to consider the practical realities in attempting to implement and enforce a nonsectarian standard. Assuming that a state entity engages in a constitutionally neutral selection process, it is faced with a series of thorny questions under the standard adopted by the Fourth Circuit. The invocational speakers are not necessarily state agents; they are often professionals who have been invited based upon a list of clergymen in the area. See S.C. Code Ann. 6-1-160(B)(3). First of all, is it appropriate for a civil authority to instruct a clergyman as to how to pray to the Deity? Secondly, what exactly is a nonsectarian prayer? Thirdly, what if the clergyman refuses to follow the standard, or includes sectarian content after agreeing to

10 comply with the standard? Fourth, how many sectarian prayers are too many? A. Inappropriateness of state direction of the content of invocational prayers In Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), this Court held that states may not control the content of invocational prayers because such control violates the Establishment Clause. Id. at 588. This Court held that a directive from the state that prayers must be nonsectarian constitutes government control. Id. Government control of the content of prayers violates the Establishment Clause. Id. The government entanglement resulting from having the state control the content of prayers creates greater Establishment clause problems than simply allowing a clergyman to pray according to his or her freedom of conscience. Id. at 589 (But though the First Amendment does not allow the government to stifle prayers which aspire to these ends, neither does it permit the government to undertake the task for itself.); see also Adler v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 250 F.3d 1330, 1337 (11th Cir. 2000) (The ability to regulate the content of speech is a hallmark of state involvement.). This Courts holding in Lee supports the view that Marsh should not be construed to require parsing of invocational prayers by the state. In fact, Lee rejected the whole notion of a distinction between sectarian and nonsectarian prayers if mandated by the government. This Court found that the danger of a state-created orthodoxy threatening freedom of belief and conscience was

11 too great. Id. at 592. Other courts have agreed that neither state legislators nor the federal judiciary should be in the business of composing official prayers for clergymen. Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1278; Galloway, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 225; Rubin, 2011 WL 2790273 at *6. Judge Niemeyer has identified another concern for states if they are required to mandate the language of invocational prayers. Prayer is the sacred dialogue between humankind and God. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 356 (Niemeyer, J., dissenting). Imposing a state-mandated ban on nonsectarian prayers has two important effects. It treats prayer agnostically and reduces it to a civil nicety. The effect of treating prayer agnostically is produced by the failure of a state-mandated ban on sectarian references to recognize that prayer is a communication with the Divine Being over which the state exercises no authority. Id. at 366; see also Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 159 F.3d 1227, 1234 n.10 (10th Cir. 1998) (The very act of praying to a supreme power assumes the existence of that supreme power). This countrys first President recognized that prayer is directed to a supreme authority in his first official act as President. See Lee, 505 U.S. at 633 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting Washingtons prayer to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations). By acting to regulate the content of prayer, courts take sides with those who do not believe in a Divine or Supreme Being, thus violating the Establishment Clause. Walz v. Tax Commn of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 669 (1970)

12 (explaining that one of the general principles of the First Amendment is that this Court will not tolerate . . . governmental interference with religion). The effect of reducing prayer to a civil nicety is produced by imposition of a government-controlled orthodoxy. It is not for courts to legislate, based on the imprecise notion of nonsectarianism, bowing to political correctness or universal inoffensiveness . . . without regard to the dangers of governmental censorship of religious expression. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 367 (Niemeyer, J., dissenting); see also Marsh, 463 U.S. at 794-95 (refusing to parse the content of invocations). One of the manifest purposes of legislative invocations is to invoke Divine guidance. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792. Washington, in his first official act as President, sought from the Divine Being whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes. Lee, 505 U.S. at 633 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Washington thus expressed his belief that invocational prayer invokes divine benefits on the legislative body. Many Christians believe prayers must be offered in the name of Jesus Christ to be effective. See Turner v. City Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, 534 F.3d 352, 354 (4th Cir. 2008). This view is derived from a number of Scriptural references which are taken as authoritative and to be followed literally. See John

13 16:23 (quoting Jesus as stating, Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you.); see also John 14:13-14 and 15:16; Eph. 5:20; Col. 3:17. Denying these people the freedom to pray according to the dictates of their consciences infringes on their religious liberty and results in disparate treatment as compared to those who believe nonsectarian prayers are sufficient. But at a deeper level, a government mandate that legislative prayers be nonsectarian runs the risk of undermining a recognized purpose of legislative prayer, which is to invoke divine guidance. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792. Government is not in a position to make judgments on the religious issue of what constitutes an effective prayer or to pass on the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. It therefore should refrain from interfering with the professional judgment of religious leaders on the subject. By mandating nonsectarian invocations, courts may be denying legislatures the benefit of invocations, thus reducing them to a civil nicety. B. Lack of a clear standard as to what constitutes a sectarian prayer The Eleventh Circuit articulated its difficulty in defining the difference between sectarian and nonsectarian prayers. Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1272. The court explained, We would not know where to begin to demarcate the boundary between sectarian and nonsectarian expressions. The court further recognized that this confusion will be experienced by state entities as they attempt to implement a ban on

14 nonsectarian prayers. Id. This Court also has recognized the difficulty in attempting to formulate such a standard. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 819 n.42 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (explaining that fashioning nonsectarian prayers may not be possible and would likely be offensive to devout members of all religions). As the court warned in Lee, courts are not in a position to determine what is sectarian and what is not. The Eleventh Circuit expressly declined this role of ecclesiastical arbiter. Pelphry, 547 F.3d at 1274. Justice Souter has written that courts are not competent to distinguish between what is sectarian and what is ecumenical and that this practice should be avoided where possible. Lee, 505 U.S. at 616-17 (Souter, J., dissenting). Two lower courts have also abstained from embarking on such a perilous process. Galloway, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 24243; Rubin, 2011 WL 2790273 at *6. The attempts by courts to formulate a standard have underscored this difficulty. The Fourth Circuit required legislative invocations to embrace a nonsectarian ideal and make efforts at ecumenism. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 347-48. This smacks of the very government-controlled orthodoxy that Lee warned against. Moreover, the meaning of sectarian is elusive. The term sectarian has been defined as relating to or characteristic of a sect. Rubin v. City of Burbank, 101 Cal. App. 4th 1194, 1205 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). But what is a sect? The Rubin court quotes one component of the definition, an

15 organized ecclesiastical body, or a religious denomination. Id. (quoting Websters 10th Collegiate Dictionary (2001), p. 1053). However, Merriam-Webster defines sect as a dissenting or schismatic religious body, especially: one regarded as extreme or heretical. Meriam-Webster online, available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/sect. The legal definition of sectarian is something of a moving target, meaning different things at different times. See, e.g., State v. Weedman, 226 N.W. 348 (S.D. 1929) (holding that the King James Version of the Bible was not sectarian, but instruction based on Protestant or Catholic doctrine was sectarian in nature); Sch. Dist. of Abington Twp., Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 210 (1963) (citing expert testimony that the Bible is not sectarian). By implication, a state becomes entangled in religious disputes as to what is orthodox and what is heretical or schismatic by labeling a particular prayer sectarian. The courts finding a particular prayer sectarian in nature have agreed on only one point: that mentioning the name of Jesus Christ infuses a prayer with a sectarian character. See Doe v. Indian River Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 256, 285 (3rd Cir. 2011); Joyner, 653 F.3d at 349; Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, South Carolina, 376 F.3d 292, 300 (4th Cir. 2004); Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 473 F.3d 188, 204 (5th Cir. 2006), revd on rehearing en banc on other grounds, 494 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 2007); Stein v. Plainwell Community Schools, 822 F.2d 1406, 1410 (6th Cir. 1987); Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 171 F.3d 369, 385 (6th Cir. 1999); Hinrichs v. Bosma, 440 F.3d 393, 399 (7th Cir. 2006), revd on

16 hearing en banc on other grounds, 506 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2008); Bacus v. Palo Verde Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 52 Fed. Appx. 355, 356 (9th Cir. 2002); Rubin, 101 Cal. App. 4th at 1203-04. This understanding is not only inconsistent with historical notions of what is considered sectarian, it appears to evidence a government policy of singling out a particular historical/religious figure, Jesus Christ, for particularized disapproval and censorship. In Turner, 534 F.3d at 354, the City Attorney concluded that invocations should not mention Jesus Christ. The Fourth Circuits opinion in this case continues down this road of discrimination against believers in Christ. Yet this Courts cases have not required such a result. In Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), this Court held that the Constitution does not require government hostility to religion: When the state . . . cooperates with religious authorities . . . it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. [W]e find no constitutional requirement

17 which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. Id. at 314. Under Zorach, government should respect and accommodate religious observances and traditions, but may not endorse them. Government may not interfere with religion. Walz, 397 U.S. at 669. Additionally, many founding fathers cautioned against the separation of principles expounded by religion from the governance of the state: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happinessthese firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. E.E.O.C. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, N.C., 48 F. Supp. 2d 505, 509-10 (E.D.N.C. 1999) (quoting George Washingtons Farewell Address, September 26, 1796). Singling out Jesus Christ for particularized disapproval does not constitute neutrality. Instead,

18 it promotes the view among the general public that courts are taking sides in a religious debate or exhibiting hostility toward religion. Moreover, most people disagree with a policy of government censorship of the name of Jesus Christ in legislative invocations in the state from which this case arises. See WXII12.com, Republicans, Democrats Disagree With Sectarian Prayer Ban, Poll Says, available at http://www.wxii12.com/news/24424727/detail.html (finding that 70% of voters disagreed with a policy of banning mentioning Jesus in opening prayers at the North Carolina House of Representatives). Whatever sectarian means, the use of it to focus on the name of Jesus Christ for disapproval violates the constitutional mandate of government neutrality. See Lee, 505 U.S. at 590 (explaining that the central meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, which is that all creeds must be tolerated and none favored). Since no other workable standard has been found, the Fourth Circuits mandate that legislative prayers be nonsectarian should not stand. Furthermore, questions exist as to whether other religious names, terms, and means of addressing the Deity should be considered sectarian. What about references to God, Jehovah, or Allah? See, e.g., Simpson v. Chesterfield County Bd. of Suprs, 404 F.3d 276, 284 (4th Cir. 2005) (commending the board for using wide and embracive religious terms but not Christ). A possible solution is to allow invocations in my saviors name. Would prayers of this type pass constitutional muster? Guidance from this

19 Court is needed questions. to resolve these perplexing

C. Uncertainty in enforcement of a ban on sectarian prayers Attempts to enforce a ban on sectarian references present another dilemma for legislative bodies. Instructing a religious leader not to say certain things during legislative invocations invites civil disobedience because of the conflict it produces between civil and religious authority. As this Court has recognized, religious people, including the Founding Fathers, believe in a Supreme Deity in whom are rooted the very unalienable rights of man upon which the Bill of Rights is based. Schempp, 374 U.S. at 213. If this countrys institutions presuppose a Supreme Being, then by what authority does a court impose restrictions within the religious sphere? See Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 683; Snyder, 159 F.3d at 1234 n.10. The concept of divine supremacy over civil government has deep roots in the law. EDWARD D. RE, THE ROMAN CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMON LAW, 29 Fordham L. Rev. 447, 474 (1961). The principles of natural law underlying both the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta derive from civil law as informed by canon law of the Christian Church. Id. at 452, 474-77, 484-85. It was through the influence of Christianity that the concept of equity developed in ecclesiastical courts. Id. at 460-

20 62. The law therefore recognizes the idea that civil authority may not exercise control of religion. Ironically, the injunction requested in this case is based on the equitable power of the ecclesiastical court to mitigate the rigors of the common law. Id. at 478-80. The chancellors power as the keeper of the Kings conscience can be traced to the denunciation evangelica procedure of the canon law, which had its roots in the Gospel of Matthew. Id. at 482-83; see also MIKE MACNAIR, EQUITY AND CONSCIENCE, 27 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 659, 669 (2007). The existence of injunctive relief presupposes the sovereignty of religious authority over civil law when the government tramples on the fundamental rights of man. It was an equitable appeal to the Deity in the Declaration of Independence due to the abuse of power by the King that lead to the religious liberty the First Amendment embodies. Schempp, 374 U.S. at 213. Courts have held that it is belief in a supreme authority that separates a religious belief from a mere philosophy or personal belief not entitled to constitutional protection. Berman v. U.S., 156 F.2d 377, 381 (9th Cir. 1946) (The essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation.) (citations omitted). This makes sense, since avoidance of the military draft implies exemption from a basic duty to secular government. Government interference into the content of prayers invites civil disobedience because it forces a conflict between religious and civil authority.

21 Religion does not allow itself to be confined within the mind of its adherents, but seeks expression through obedience to God. See Lee, 505 U.S. at 645 (Scalia, J. dissenting); see also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 219-20 (1972) (holding that conduct based on religious convictions is entitled to constitutional protection). Those who have spoken out to maintain the balance of power between church and state have faced the wrath of the state, including imprisonment and execution. RE, infra at 474. Governmental encroachments on religion led to the signing of the Magna Carta. Id. at 475-76. Accordingly, governmental attempts to control the content of prayer create more Establishment Clause difficulties than the sectarian strife feared by those who seek to avoid governmental recognition of religious observances. See Joyner, 653 F.3d at 347. Similarly, if the purpose of an invocation is to seek Divine guidance in its deliberations and pronouncements, may a civil court interfere in such an appeal any more than a state government may interfere in an appeal to this Court on a federal matter? See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675 (1984). Because prayer is the articulation of words addressed to the Divine Being which cannot be determined by a civil court of law, a state-mandated limit on sectarian references places courts and legislative bodies in the untenable role of regulating the content of religious expression. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 366 (Niemeyer, J. dissenting). Secondly, what is a legislative body to do when sectarian references are made? Despite the fact that legislative invocations have been held to be

22 government speech, this Court has held that state entities may not control the content of invocations. Turner, 534 F.3d at 354; Lee, 505 U.S. at 588. This places legislative bodies in the difficult position of being held responsible for something over which they have no control. States surely cannot punish religious leaders for expressing their faith. To comply with the Fourth Circuits directive, legislative bodies must either refrain from allowing invocations altogether or impose sectarian quotas. See Joyner, 653 F.3d at 366 (Niemeyer, J. dissenting). Once a sectarian reference is made, a legislative body will now have to actively seek for religious leaders who will either offer nonsectarian prayers or pray to some other deitysomething the government is prohibited from doing. Lee, 505 U.S. at 590. D. How many sectarian references are too many? The Fourth Circuit held that sectarian references in approximately 80% of the invocations violated the Constitution. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 34950. On the other hand, courts have refused to enjoin legislative invocations when 68 to 70% of the invocations contained Christian references. Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1267. The Fourth Circuit majority recognizes that courts should not be in the business of policing prayers for the occasional sectarian reference. Joyner, 653 F.3d at 351. At what point does the occasional sectarian reference become one too many? Must legislative bodies keep a running total of sectarian references

23 and take action when a certain percentage is reached? How is such a percentage to be calculated? Must this percentage have a relationship to the percentage of individuals of various religions in the community? These and other questions are raised by the Fourth Circuits frequency test, and necessitate guidance from this Court. III. Questions exist as to the applicability of principles of government speech and limited public forum. Forsyth County argued that the legislative invocations given by outside speakers constitutes private speech, rather than government speech. Joyner v. Forsyth County, No. 1:07-CV-243, 2009 WL 3787754 at *5 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2009). The District Court rejected this argument based on prior Fourth Circuit precedent. See Turner, 534 F.3d at 354-55. The Fourth Circuit ignored this issue. However, the rationale for the characterization of invocations as government speech is not apparent. A prayer does not seem to fit within the parameters of government speech, which has been defined as the government speaking for itself. Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-68 (2009). An invocational speaker is not making a statement on behalf of the government. Rather, a purpose of invocations is to invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792. This implies communication with the Deity, in addition to others present in the room. Thus, the freedoms of speech and free exercise of religion are implicated, potentially triggering

24 strengthened constitutional protections for the speakers. See Employment Div., Dept. of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881-82 (1990) (noting that when Free Exercise concerns are implicated in conjunction with other fundamental rights, courts have applied heightened scrutiny); Blackhawk v. Pennsylvania, 381 F.3d 202, 209 (3rd Cir. 2004) (holding that laws that target religiously motivated conduct violate the Free Exercise clause). Moreover, governmental control over the content of invocations has not been permitted. Lee, 505 U.S. at 588. When the government does not control the content of the speech, religious statements in a limited public forum have been upheld even in the public school context. Adler, 250 F.3d at 1332-33, cert. denied 534 U.S. 1065 (2001); Bd. of Educ. of Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens By & Through Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (explaining the difference between government speech endorsing religion, which is forbidden, and private speech endorsing religion, which is protected). An invocation is not a limited public forum in the sense that a soapbox is created for the public to express its views. However, due to the constitutional prohibition on government control of the content of invocations, they may partake of the nature of a limited public forum in the sense that once an invocational speaker has been selected, the free exercise and free speech of that speaker should be respected. See Lee, 505 U.S. at 588. Marsh can be read to imply that legislative invocations present a special kind of forumnot a

25 forum for the free debate on specific issues, but a forum for prayers offered for a particular purpose and within certain limits. The purpose of invocations is to invoke Divine guidance, as well as to solemnize the proceeding. Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792; Lynch, 465 U.S. at 693 (OConnor, J., concurring). The content-based limits have also been set forth in Marsh. First, the prayers are offered for the benefit of the legislative body. Id. at 792. Second, they must not be exploited to proselytize. Id. at 794. Within these limits, the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses should permit invocational speakers to pray within the dictates of their own consciences. However, the application of these principals is uncertain without a ruling from this Court. Even in the context of government speech, this Court has upheld government support of monuments containing incidental religious messages. Summum, 555 U.S. at 466-67. Like monuments, invocations have deep roots in the history of this country and legislatures should not be forced to either impose government censorship or abandon the practice altogether. See id. at 479-80. However, the application of this Courts government speech jurisprudence to invocations is also unclear. Courts analyzing constitutional implications of legislative invocations have employed the concepts of limited public forum, government speech, and private speech in analyzing the law under the Free Speech Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, as well as the Establishment Clause. In doing so, they have reached contradictory results. Therefore, this Court

26 should grant certiorari and provide guidance as to how these rights should be protected. CONCLUSION The more stringent nonsectarian standard imposed by the Fourth Circuit has confused the law regarding legislative invocations. As they face an increasing number of legal challenges, legislative bodies need clarification of the standard to apply. Furthermore, the problems created by imposition and enforcement of a nonsectarian standard on invocations cry out for guidance from this Court. The above-referenced Senators respectfully join in Petitioners request that this Court grant certiorari in this matter. Respectfully submitted, J.R. Murphy
Counsel of Record Timothy J. Newton Co-Counsel

MURPHY & GRANTLAND, P.A. 4406-B Forest Drive Columbia, SC 29206 (803) 782-4100 tnewton@murphygrantland.com Counsel for Amici Curiae November 30, 2011

APPENDIX

i APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A: List of Senators joining as amici . . 1a Appendix B: Challenges to Public Invocations . . 3a

1a

APPENDIX A A total of 27 Senators of the State of South Carolina have joined in this brief as amici curiae. These Senators are: George E. Chip Campsen, III Hugh K. Leatherman, Sr. Glenn F. McConnell, President Pro Tempore Harvey S. Peeler, Jr. John E. Courson David L. Thomas William H. ODell Robert W. Hayes, Jr. Larry A. Martin Luke A. Rankin W. Greg Ryberg Thomas C. Alexander Michael L. Fair Lawrence K. Larry Grooms

2a Daniel B. Danny Verdin, III John M. Jake Knotts, Jr. Ronnie W. Cromer Kevin L. Bryant Raymond E. Cleary, III Paul G. Campbell, Jr. A. Shane Massey Lee Bright Tom Davis Shane R. Martin Michael T. Rose Phillip W. Shoopman Chauncey K. Gregory

3a

APPENDIX B
CHALLENGES TO PUBLIC INVOCATIONS

4a
Date Media/Press City State California

August 23, Los Angeles Times Burbank 2002 November Associated Press 7, 2002 May 5, 2004 ACLU.org

Murray City Utah

La Mesa

California

November Associated Press 22, 2004

Culpeper County

Virginia

April 14, 2005

ReligionNewsBlog/ Chesterfield Virginia Associated Press

June 9, 2005 July 2, 2005

ABC News.go.com Amite

Louisiana

World Net Daily

Great Falls

South Carolina

August 21, Atlanta Journal 2005 Constitution December Covenantnews. 1, 2005 com

Cobb County Georgia

Indianapolis Indiana

5a
Deliberative Body City Council City Council Status Notes

Resulted in http://articles.latimes.com/2 Litigation 002/aug/23/local/me-rubin23 Resulted in http://www.freedomforum.o Litigation rg/templates/document.asp? documentID=17220 Unknown http://www.aclu.org/religionbelief/aclu-san-diegochallenges-sectarian-prayers -city-council-meetings-behalf -resident

City Council

Town Council

Abandoned http://www.firstamendment Practice center.org/ruling-limitingprayers-at-public-meetingscauses-stir-in-bible-belt Resulted in http://www.religionnewsblo Litigation g.com/10930/appeals-courtrules-against-wiccan-invirginia-prayer-lawsuit Resulted in http://abcnews.go.com/US/B Litigation eliefs/story?id=1028366&pa ge=1 Resulted in http://www.wnd.com/?pageI Litigation d=31129 Resulted in http://www.aren.org/news/d Litigation arla/SC-towns-prayersprovoke-lawsuits.html

Board of Supervisors

Tangipahoa Parish School Board City Council County Commission

Indiana House Resulted in http://www.covenantnews.c of RepresenLitigation om/newswire/archives/0165 tatives 78.html

6a
Date Media/Press City Oconee County, Walhalla Delaware County State South Carolina

February Independentmail 6, 2007 .com

January 3, Ccn-usa.net 2008 March 9, 2008 May 6, 2008 June 30, 2008 July 22, 2008

Ohio

The Grand Rapids Grand Press Rapids Journal news.net Charles Town Onenewsnow.com Greenfield

Michigan

West Virginia Ohio

Wspa.com

Clemson Council

South Carolina

August 30, World Net Daily 2008 December Journaltimes.com 2, 2008

Mesa County Colorado Racine City Wisconsin

January 6, Roanoke.com 2009 January 16, 2009 USA Today

Roanoke City Virginia Newton New Jersey

7a
Deliberative Status Notes Body County Abandoned http://www.independentmai Commissioners Practice l.com/news/2007/feb/06/ocon ee-county-open-meetingssilence County Permits http://www.ccn -usa.net/ Commissioners Uncensored contents.php?typeid=5&id= Prayer 526 City Unknown Commissioners City Council http://www.mlive.com/news/ index.ssf/2008/03/most_loca l_governments_practic.html

Abandoned http://www.mlive.com/news/ Practice index.ssf/2008/03/most_loca l_governments_practic.html Permits http://www.onenewsnow.co Uncensored m/Legal/Default.aspx?id=15 Prayer 7778 Permits http://www2.wspa.com/news Uncensored /2008/jul/22/clemson_city_co Prayer uncil_discusses_prayer_at_ monday_me-ar-8439 http://www.wnd.com/?pageI d=73757 http://www.journaltimes.co m/news/local/article_3ddd6a 21-8874-57b2-b0c4f1cabb06e5b6.html http://www.roanoke.com/ne ws/roanoke/wb/190130

City Council

City Council

County Unknown Commissioners City Council Unknown

City Council Town Council

Unknown

Abandoned http://www.usatoday.com/n Practice ews/religion/2009-01-16atheist-prayer_N.htm

8a
Date Media/Press City Juneau (Dodge County) Richmond Accomack County State Wisconsin

February One News Now 11, 2009 February Christian News 23, 2009 Wire March 24, BCNN1.com 2009

Virginia Virginia

March 25, Washingtonpost 2009 .com

Annapolis

Maryland

April 24, 2009 July 9, 2009

Fredericksburg.com Stafford

Virginia

Clickability.com

Tracy City

California

July 10, 2009

Smmercury.com

San Marcos City Turlock

Texas

August 22, The Modesto Bee 2009

California

August 24, Examiner 2009

La Crosse

Wisconsin

9a
Deliberative Body Board of Supervisors State Police Chaplains Board of Supervisors Status Notes

Abandoned http://www.onenewsnow.co Practice m/Legal/Default.aspx?id=41 5572 Abandoned http://www.christiannewswi Practice re.com/news/869929530.html Mandate Not Available Any Longer Censorship of Sectarian Reference Unknown http://voices.washingtonpos t.com/annapolis/2009/03/sco lded_pastor_this_is_how_i_ p.html

General Assembly

School Board

Abandoned http://fredericksburg.com/N Practice ews/FLS/2009/042009/0424 2009/461600 Unknown http://www.nbcbayarea.com /news /l o cal /FoundationProtests-Prayer-in-TracyCity-Council.html

City Council

City Council

http://smmercury.com/4037 Permits Uncensored 2/san-marcos-council-toPrayer continue-prayers Permits http://www.modbee.com/200 Uncensored 9/ 0 8 / 2 1 / 8 2 6 0 74/turl o ckPrayer council-prayers-targeted. html Permits http://www.examiner.com/e Uncensored vangelical-in-national/cityPrayer officials-adopt-recom mended-invocations-policydespite-threats

City Council

City Council

10a
Date Media/Press City North Richland Hills Toledo State Texas

August 25, Pegasus News 2009

August 27, WTOL 11 2009

Ohio

September Turnto23.com 9, 2009

Tehachapi City

California

September Commercialappeal. Memphis 13, 2009 com City September Gainesville.com 21, 2009 October 2, The New York 2009 Times Alachua County Lodi

Tennessee

Florida

California

October 15, 2009

Ohio Votes 2011

Shelby

Ohio

October 23, 2009

Hampton Roads

Chesapeake Virginia

October 26, 2009

Houston Area Pastor Council

Houston

Texas

11a
Deliberative Body City Council Status Notes

Permits http://www.pegasusnews.co Uncensored m/news/2009/aug/25/northPrayer richland-hills-city-councilcalled-out-prayi Mandate http://www.wtol.com/Global/ Censorship story.asp?S=11005823 of Sectarian References Abandoned http://www.turnto23.com/m Practice ountain/20821439/detail.ht ml Permits http://www.commercialappe Uncensored al.com/news/2009/sep/13/co Prayer uncil-prayers-draw-protest http://www.gainesville.com/ article/20090921/COLUMN ISTS/909211003

City Council

City Council

City Council

County Unknown Commissioners City Council

Mandate http://www.nytimes.com/20 Censorship 09/10/02/us/02lodi.html of Sectarian References Unknown http://www2.ohiovotes2011. com/news/2009/oct/15/mayo r_vetoes_city_council_praye rs-ar-18501 http://hamptonroads.com/20 09/10/chesapeake-councilmeeting-invocations-benonsectarian

City Council

City Council

Mandate Censorship of Sectarian References

City Council

Resulted in http://www.imakenews.com/ Litigation hapc/e_article001578349.cf m?x=bgkKfSm,b11,w

12a
Date Media/Press City State

November FFRF.org 9, 2009

Wheaton City Illinois

November Richmond Register Richmond 28, 2009

Kentucky

December Bakersfield.com 8, 2009

Bakersfield City

California

January 12, 2010

Hesperia Star

Hesperia

California

February St. Petersburg 4, 2010 Times

Tampa

Florida

February Mysuburbanlife 5, 2010 .com

Elmhurst City

Illinois

March 4, 2010

Lompoc Record

Lompoc

California

13a
Deliberative Body City Council Status Notes

Permits http://ffrf.org/publications/fr Uncensored eethought-today/articles/ffrfPrayer protests-illinois-city-councilprayers Mandate Censorship of Sectarian References http://richmondregister.com /localnews/x546340955/Com missioner-stands-up-to ACLU-s-concerns-aboutprayer

City Commission

City Council

Permits http://richmondregister.com Uncensored /localnews/x546340955/Com Prayer missioner-stands-up-to ACLU-s-concerns-aboutprayer Abandon Practice Unknown http://www.hesperiastar.co m/articles/board-3125-schoolinvocation.html http://www.tampabay.com/n ews/localgovernment/atheis ts-object-again-to-tampacity-council-prayer/1070731 http://www.mysuburbanlife. com/elmhurst/newsnow/x64 4559574/Foundation-joinsresidents-aldermen-inopposition-to-public-prayer http://www.lompocrecord.co m/news/local/govt-andpolitics/article_7a4a367c2758-11df-bf60-001cc4c 03286.html

School Board

City Council

City Council

Unknown

City Council

Mandate Censorship of Sectarian References

14a
Date Media/Press City Sevier County State Tennessee

March 13, The Mountain 2010 Press

March 19, Examiner.com 2010

Manteca, San California Joaquin County

March 23, Akroncitycouncil 2010 .org

Akron

Ohio

April 8, 2010 April 12, 2010

FFRC.com

Birmingham Alabama City

Arkansasnews.com North Little Arkansas Rock

April 14, 2010 April 21, 2010

Star News Online

Brunswick County

North Carolina

Examiner.net

Independence Missouri

15a
Deliberative Status Body County Unknown Commissioners Notes http://www.themountainpre ss.com/view/full_story/6671 948/article--Watersstanding-up-for-prayer-Despite-threat-of-lawsuit-mayor-says-meeting-willhave-invocation

City Council

Permits http://www.examiner.com/a Uncensored t h e i s m - i n - l o s - a n g e l e s / Prayer another-california-citytrouble-over-sectarianprayer Mandate Censorship of Sectarian References Unknown http://www.akroncitycouncil .org/News/entry/Council_ch anges_opening_prayer_proc edures http://ffrf.org/news/releases/ ffrf-objects-to-councilprayers-in-birmingham-ala

Akron City Council

City Council

City Council

Mandate http://arkansasnews.com/20 Censorship 10/04/12/aclu-wants-end-toof Sectarian nlr-city-council-prayers References

County Permits http://www.starnewsonline. Commissioners Uncensored com/article/20100414/ARTI Prayer CLES/100419842 City Council Unknown http://www.examiner.net/ne ws/news_columnists/x57962 951/Deweese-City-Councilremains-firm-on-issue-ofprayer-at-meetings

16a
Date April 23, 2010 Media/Press The Suburbanite City Hartville State Ohio

April 25, 2010

Honoluluadvertiser Honolulu .com City

Hawaii

April 28, 2010

Jacsonville.com

Jacksonville Florida City

May 5, 2010 May 18, 2010 July 12, 2010

Los Angeles Times Lancaster

California

Digtriad.com

Greensboro

North Carolina North Carolina

Star News Online

Raleigh

July 14, 2010 July 20, 2010 July 27, 2010

Foundation for Moral Law News Channel

Hoover

Alabama

Augusta City Georgia

Breaking Christian Wichita News

Kansas

17a
Deliberative Status Notes Body Village Council Permits http://www.thesuburbanite. Uncensored com/communities/x1394806 Prayer 430/Hartville-battles-withprayer-and-religious-issues City Council Mandate http://the.honoluluadvertise Censorship r.com/article/2010/Apr/25/ln of Sectarian /hawaii4250358.html Reference Permits http://jacksonville.com/news Uncensored /metro/2010-04-28/story/ Prayer councilmans-use-jesusprayer-leads-legal-questions Resulted in http://articles.latimes.com/2 Litigation 010/may/05/local/la-melancaster-prayer-20100505 Permits http://www.digtriad.com/ne Uncensored ws/story.aspx?storyid=1423 Prayer 51 Mandate Censorship of Sectarian Reference http://divine.blogs.starnews online.com/12307/praying-injesus-name-controversyreaches-general-assembly

City Council

City Council

City Council

General Assembly

Board of Education

Abandoned http://morallaw.org/blog/201 Practice 0/07/foundation-supportsschool-board-prayer/

City Permits http://www2.wjbf.com/news/ Commissioners Uncensored 2010/jul/20/augusta-getsPrayer stop-prayer-letter-ar-603418/ City Council Permits http://www.breakingchristia Uncensored nnews.com/articles/display_ Prayer art.html?ID=8074

18a
Date Media/Press City Woodruff State South Carolina New York South Carolina

August 4, GoUpstate.com 2010 August 7, World Net Daily 2010 August 9, CNS News 2010

Greece Aiken

August 15, GoUpstate.com 2010

Spartanburg South Carolina

August 20, The Ledger.com 2010 September Thecabin.net 12, 2010 October 5, MPNnow.com 2010

Lakeland

Florida

Searcy City

Arkansas

Canandaigua New York City

October 14, 2010

Star Local News

Rowlett

Texas

November Isuvoice.com 3, 2010

Pocatello

Idaho

19a
Deliberative Body City Council Status Notes

Permits http://www.goupstate.com/a Uncensored rticle/20100804/articles/804 Prayer 1024 Resulted in http://www.wnd.com/?pageI Litigation d=188617 Mandate http://cnsnews.com/node/70 Censorship 784 of Sectarian References

Town Board City Council

County Council Mandate http://www.goupstate.com/a Censorship rticle/20100815/articles/815 of Sectarian 1035 References City Commission City Council Resulted in http://www.theledger.com/a Litigation rticle/20100820/NEWS/8205 042 Permits http://thecabin.net/news/20 Uncensored 10-09-12/group-asks-searcyPrayer council-not-pray-meetings Permits http://www.mpnnow.com/ca Uncensored nandaigua/x1616324528/Pr Prayer ayer-at-meetings-to-beconsidered-by-CanandaiguaCity-Council Permits http://www.lakeshoretimes. Uncensored com/articles/2010/10/28/row Prayer lett_lakeshore_times/news/ 8305.txt Permits http://isuvoice.com/?p=3613 Uncensored 65 Prayer

City Council

City Council

City Council

20a
Date Media/Press City State North Carolina

November Roanoke-Chowan Jackson 19, 2010 News-Herald (Northampton County) November NBC-2.com 22, 2010 December 7, 2010 nbc4i.com Cape Coral

Florida

Chillicothe

Ohio

December 10, 2010

San Antonio Express

Bulverde City

Texas

December 16, 2010

WXII12.com

High Point

North Carolina

December 17, 2010

CBSNewYork.com Point Pleasant Beach City, Toms River Tulsa World Tulsa

New Jersey

December 25, 2010

Oklahoma

January 5, KJCT8.com 2011

Grand Junction

Colorado

21a
Deliberative Status Notes Body County Board Permits http://www.roanoke-chowan of Uncensored newsherald.com/2010/11/19/ Commissioners Prayer commissioners-reinstateprayer/ City Council Permits http://www.nbc-2.com/Glo Uncensored bal/story.asp?S=13553302 Prayer Permits http://www2.nbc4i.com/new Uncensored s / 2 0 1 0 / d e c / 0 7 / p r a y e r Prayer chillicothe-council-meetingsar-318666/ Permits http://www.mysanantonio.c Uncensored om/community/bulverde/art Prayer icle/Prayer-controversydistracts-City-Council926496.php Mandate http://www.wxii12.com/r/26 Censorship 157885/detail.html of Sectarian References Resulted in http://newyork.cbslocal.com/ Litigation 2010/12/17/judge-voids-newjersey-towns-policy-oncouncil-prayers/ Mandate Censorship of Sectarian Reference http://www.tulsaworld.com/ news/article.aspx?subjectid =11&articleid=20101225_18 _A11_InAnni21488

City Council

City Council

City Council

City Council

City Council

City Council

Permits http://www.kjct8.com/news/ Uncensored 26370618/detail.html Prayer

22a
Date January 10, 2011 January 13, 2011 January 16, 2011 Media/Press FFRF.org Freedom From Religion Foundation NorthJersey.com City Des Moines El Paso County Ocean County State Iowa Colorado

New Jersey

January 27, 2011

Secular News Daily Madison

Wisconsin

January 28, 2011

thenewamerican .com

Honolulu

Hawaii

January 29, 2011 January 30, 2011

fredericksburg.com Fredericksburg GJ Sentinel Garfield County

Virginia

Colorado

February The Ledger.com 5, 2011 February Yakima Herald 5, 2011 Republic

Polk County Florida

Yakima

Washington

23a
Deliberative Body State Legislature County Commission Borough Council Status Unknown Unknown Notes http://ffrf.org/news/ajaxreleases/ http://ffrf.org/news/ajaxreleases/

Abandoned http://www.northjersey.com/ Practice news/113835669_local_issu e__Prayer_at_Public_Meeti ngs_Councils_reviewing_tra dition.html http://www.secularnewsdail y.com/2011/01/27/ffrfwisconsin-state-assemblyshouldn%E2%80%99t-havea-prayer-2

State Assembly Unknown

Hawaii Senate Abandoned http://thenewamerican.com/ Practice usnews/politics/6085-despiteban-hawaii-senators-opensession-with-prayer City Council Resulted in http://fredericksburg.com/N Litigation ews/FLS/2011/012011/0129 2011/603881

County Permits http://www.gjsentinel.com/n Commissioners Uncensored ews/articles/garfield_prayer Prayer _debate_begins School Board Permits http://www.theledger.com/a Uncensored rticle/20110205/NEWS/1020 Prayer 55024 Permits http://www.yakimaUncensored herald.com/stories/2011/02/ Prayers 05/legal-issues-abound-overcity-s-prayer-policy-proposal

City Council

24a
Date Media/Press City Live Oak State Florida

February Suwannee 7, 2011 Democrat

February Wsau.com 7, 2011

Marshfield City

Wisconsin

February The Oregonian 22, 2011 February Freedomblogging. 23, 2011 com

Damascus

Oregon

Denver City Colorado

February FFRF.org 25, 2011 March 1, 2011 March 2, 2011 Corning Observer

Brazo County Texas

Corning

California

Wcax.com

Franklin Town

Vermont

25a
Deliberative Body City Council Status Notes

Permits http://suwanneedemocrat.co Uncensored m/x2072624126/SuwanneePrayer County-CommissionPrayers-will-continue Unknown http://wsau.com/news/articl es/2011/feb/07/marshfieldf ace s - l a w s u i t - o v e r - c i t y council-prayer http://www.oregonlive.com/ happy-valley/index. ssf/2011/02/post_2.html http://thebroadside.freedom blogging.com/2011/02/23/inthe-separation-of-churchand-state-timing-isimportant

City Council

City Council

Unknown

House of Unknown Representative

County Permits Commissioners Uncensored Prayer City Council Unknown http://www.corningobserver.com/articles/invoca tion-9270-council-city.html

Town Council

Resulted in http://www.wcax.com/Globa Litigation l/story.asp?S=14171934 http://www.acluvt.org/blog/2 011/03/02/aclu-sues-overtown-meeting-prayer

26a
Date April 2, 2011 Media/Press Carroll County Times City Carroll County State Maryland

April 19, 2011

Orlando Sentinel

Lady Lake

Florida

April 20, 2011

Leadertelegram .com

Eau Claire County

Wisconsin

May 4, 2011

Orange County Register

Los Alamitos California

May 14, 2011

Baltimore Sun

Salisbury

Maryland

July 22, 2011 July 22, 2011

YubaNet.com

Colton City

California

YubaNet.com

Highland County

California

27a
Deliberative Status Notes Body Board of Permits http://www.carrollcountyti Commissioners Uncensored mes.com/news/local/commis Prayer sioners-say-prayers-beforemeetings-adhere-to-theirown-beliefs/article _51a57072-5d87-11e0-a646001cc4c002e0.html Town Permits http://www.orlandosentinel. Commissioners Uncensored c o m / n e w s / l o c a l / l a k e / o s Prayer prayer-controversy-ladylake-20110419,0, 4683000.story County Abandoned http://www.leadertelegram. Commissioners Practice com/news/front_page/article _cd248420-6b0d-11e0-8ea1001cc4c002e0.html City Council Permits http://www.leadertelegram. Uncensored com/news/front_page/article Prayer _cd248420-6b0d-11e0-8ea1001cc4c002e0.html Abandoned http://articles.baltimoresun. Practice com/2011-05-14/news/bs-mdpublic-prayer-20110514 _1_invocations-lord-s-prayerprayer-at-public-meetings Unknown http://yubanet.com/californi a/Southern-California-full-ofprayin-politicians.php http://yubanet.com/californi a/Southern-California-full-ofprayin-politicians.php

City Council

City Council

County Unknown Commissioners

28a
Date July 25, 2011 Media/Press Ardemgaz.com City Conway State Arkansas

July 25, 2011

Secular News Daily San Bernadino

California

July 25, 2011 July 29, 2011

Orange County Register Dailypress.com

Yorba Linda California

Newport News City

Virginia

August 3, SandSspringsLeade Sand Springs Oklahoma 2011 r.com City

August 8, Fayobserver.com 2011

Fayetteville City

North Carolina Delaware

August 15, The New American Selbyville 2011

29a
Deliberative Body City Council Status Notes

Permits http://epaper.ardemgaz.com Uncensored /webchannel/ShowStory.asp Prayer ?Path=ArDemocratNW/201 1/07/25&ID=Ar00802 Mandate Censorship of Sectarian References http://www.secularnewsdail y.com/2011/07/25/southerncalifornia-full-of-prayin %E2%80%99-politicians

Board of Supervisors

City Council

Permits http://www.ocregister.com/a Uncensored rticles/city-309460-councilPrayer religion.html Mandate Censorship of Sectarian Reference http://articles.dailypress.co m/2011-07-29/news/dp-nwsnn-council-prayers-20110729 _1_council-meetings-genericprayer-government-prayer

City Council

City Council

Permits http://sandspringsleader.co Uncensored m/news/prayers-at-councilPrayer meetings-challenged/ article_a7293d26-bde0-11e0b9e8-001cc4c002e0.html Unknown http://www.fayobserver.com /articles/2011/08/07/110973 4?sac=Home

City Council

Indian River School Board

Resulted in http://thenewamerican.com/ Litigation usnews/constitution/8582federal-court-outlaws-schoolboard-prayers-in-delawaredistrict

30a
Date Media/Press City Lee County State North Carolina

August 16, Sanford Herald 2011

August 16, JDNews.com 2011

Onslow North County, Carolina Jacksonville Broome County New York

August 18, WBNG-TV 2011

August 21, BlueRidgeNow.com Henderson 2011

North Carolina

August 22, Richmond Times 2011 Dispatch

Chatham Virginia (Pittsylvania County)

August 22, 11 Alive.com 2011

Peachtree City

Georgia

September Delaware Law 14, 2011 Weekly September KTBS.com 26, 2011

Sussex County Bowie County

Delaware

Texas

31a
Deliberative Status Body Board of Mandate Commissioners Censorship of Sectarian References Notes http://sanfordherald.com/bo okmark/15115426-OURVIEW-Board-forced-toaddress-prayer

County Mandate http://www.jdnews.com/arti Commissioner Censorship cles/county-94072-invocation of Sectarian -commissioners.html Reference County Legislature Mandate http://www.wbng.com/news/ Censorship local/Invocation-to-Includeof Sectarian All-Faiths-128038498.html References

Board of Mandate http://www.blueridgenow.co Commissioners Censorship m/article/20110821/ARTICL of Sectarian ES/108211009 References Board of Supervisors Permits http://www2.timesdispatch. Uncensored com/news/virginia-politics/ Prayer 2011/aug/22/tdmet01-acluletter-doesnt-stop-pittsyl vania-count-ar-1253289/ Permits http://www.11alive.com/new Uncensored s/article/202575/40/PEACH Prayer TREE-CITY-Public-prayersattacked

City Council

County Council Resulted in http://www.delawarelawwee Litigation kly.com/news.php?news_id= 3786 County Permits http://www.ktbs.com/news/2 Commissioners Uncensored 9307822/detail.html Prayer

32a
Date Media/Press City Sumner County State Tennessee

October 4, Christian Post 2011

October 06, 2011 October 10, 2011

ENCToday.com

La Grange Town Rock Hall City

North Carolina Maryland

The Chestertown Spy

October 21, 2011

San Antonio Express

San Antonio Texas

October 26, 2011

BCNNI.com

Laguna Niguel

California

October 28, 2011

New-record.com

Forsyth County

North Carolina

November Ashland Current 6, 2011

Ashland

Wisconsin

November Bradenton.com 15, 2011

Manatee County

Florida

33a
Deliberative Status Notes Body County Board Resulted in http://www.christianpost.co of Education Litigation m/news/tenn-residentsexpress-their-frustrationwith-faith-attacks-57279/ Town Council Permits http://www.kinston.com/arti Uncensored cles/grange-76803-prayerPrayer bring.html Unknown http://www.chestertownspy. com/to-the-editor-rock-hallshould-copy-us-senateprayer-policy/

City Council

City Council

Resulted in http://www.mysanantonio.c Litigation om/news/local_news/article/ Mayor-sued-over-councilprayers-2228850.php Permits http://blackchristiannews.co Uncensored m/news/2011/10/californiaPrayer city-lifts-prayer-ban-atcouncil-meetings.html

City Council

Board of Resulted in h t t p : / / w w w . n e w s Commissioners Litigation record.com/content/2011/10/ 28/article/forsyth_files_petit ion_to_take_prayer_case_to _the_us_supreme_court City Council Permits http://ashlandcurrent.com/a Uncensored rticle/11/11/06/councilorsPrayer consider-ending-prayermeetings Permits http://www.bradenton.com/ Uncensored 2011/11/15/3652554/manate Prayer e-county-commissionersasked.html

County Commission