PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY

VIRGINIA

Phone: 434- 432- 7720

J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.

County Attorney

Fax: 434- 432- 1778

P. O. Box 426

al

l-

w o

Chatham, Virginia 24531

Vaden. Hunt@pittgov. org

7767 /

September 21, 2016

VIA E- MAIL (bstanley(u shg- law. com)

Honorable William M. ("Bill")

Stanley

Stanley, Jr.

Houchens & Griffith

Attorneys at Law

13508 Booker T. Washington Highway

Moneta, Virginia 24121- 5819
Re:

Rowan Counry/North Carolina Lawsuit Opinion

Dear Senator Stanley:

Attached please find a copy of the above- reference lawsuit opinion. Please call me to discuss
how this

new

ruling impacts

our previous

prayer

Please feel free to contact me about

case.

anything contained herein.

Sincerely yours,

r-

J. Vaden Hunt, Esq.

Pittsylvania County Attorney
JVH/ br
Encl.
Cc:

Clarence C.

Monday ( County

Administratar); ( via

Hon. Jessie L. Barksdale ( Chairman; BOS); (

Hon. Tim R. Barber (Supervisor); ( via

email); ( w/ encl.)

via email); ( w/ encl.)

email &

U. S.

mail)); ( w/ encl.)

PUBLISHED

UNITED

STATES

FOR

THE

No.

NANCY

LIESA

LUND;

COURT

OF APPEALS

FOURTH

CIRCUIT

15- 1591

ROBERT

MONTAG- SIEGEL;

VOELKER,

Appellees,

Plaintiffs -

v#

ROWAN

NORTH

COUNTY,

CAROLINA,

Appellant.

Defendant -

STATE
STATE

OF

OHIO;

OF

STATE

TEXAS;

OF

STATE

MICHIGAN;

MEMBERS

OF

INTERFAITH

REFORM

STATE
OF

OF

ARIZONA;
STATE

INDIANA;

OF

NEVADA;

STATE

OF

CAROLINA;

STATE

OF

OF

SOUTH

FREEDOM

ALLIANCE

WOMEN

FOUNDATION;

OF

REFORM

CHURCH

OF

SEPARATION

ASSOCIATION;

INQUIRY;

JUDAISM;

STATE

Supporting Appellant,

FOR

HUMANIST
FOR

CENTER

STATE

STATE

ALABAMA;

CONGRESS,

UNITED

AMERICAN

OF

FLORIDA;

NEBRASKA;

OKLAHOMA;

Amici
AMERICANS

OF

STATE

IaRKANSAS;

OF

STATE

VIRGINIA;

WEST

OF

AND

ANTI- DEFAMATION
FROM
SIKH

RELIGION
COALITION;

STATE;
LEAGUE;

FOUNDATION;
FOR

UNION

JUDAISM,

Amici Supporting Appellees.

Appeal

from

District
Senior

Argued:

of

the
North

District

United

States

Carolina,

Judge. (

January 27,

2016

at

District

Court

Greensboro.

James

for
A.

the

Middle

Beaty,

Jr.,

1: 13- cv- 00207- JAB- JLW)

Decided:

September

19,

2016

Reversed

ARGUED:

Allyson

Texas,

for

Patrick

Appellees.

OF

ALABAMA,

OF

Leslie

Rutledge,

GENERAL

OF

State
OF

Amicus
OF

OFFICE

State

OF

Amicus

for

Nevada,

for

South

Paxton,

of

OF

Austin,

E.

Ohio;

of

for

for

OF

OKLAHOMA,

Amicus
OFFICE
Amicus

Alan

GENERAL

State

OF

THE

State

Carson

OF

Columbus,

of

of

Ohio,

General,

Oklahoma
Wilson,

City,

Attorney
CAROLINA,

SOUTH

Carolina;

South

ATTORNEY

City,

Attorney

Attorney

Pruitt,

Oklahoma;

ATTORNEY

General,

Texas,

Scott

Attorney

DeWine,

OHIO,

OF

GENERAL

Nebraska,

Laxalt,

NEVADA,

Michael

Nevada;

GENERAL

State

THE

Carolina,

Attorney

of

ATTORNEY

THE

Amicus

OFFICE

Columbia,

State

ATTORNEY

THE

OF

General,

TEXAS,

OF

GENERAL

ATTORNEY

THE

OF

for

Michigan,

Attorney General,

Paul

OF

for

OFFICE

General,

Lincoln,

NEBRASKA,

Adam

OFFICE

Indiana,

Lansing,

Peterson,

J.

OF

GENERAL
Nebraska;

of

Amicus

State

Amicus

Oklahoma,

Ken

State

OFFICE

General,

OFFICE

ATTORNEY

OFFICE

General,

for

THE

Douglas

Amicus

General,

Attorney

MICHIGAN,

OF

GENERAL
Michigan;

of

Schuette,

Bill

Indiana;

of

ATTORNEY

THE

Amicus

for

State

of

THE

OF

for

Florida,

Indianapolis,

INDIANA,

OF

GENERAL

ATTORNEY

THE

State

OFFICE

Attorney

Zoeller,

F.

Gregory

Florida;

of

ATTORNEY

Amicus

for

Tallahassee,

GENERAL
Arizona;

of

THE

OF

General,

Attorney

FLORIDA,

OF

GENERAL

ATTORNEY

Bondi,

Jo

Pamela

Arkansas;

State

OFFICE

GENERAL
Alabama;

of

ATTORNEY

THE

OF

Arkansas,

Rock,

ATTORNEY

State

Amicus

General,

Little

ARKANSAS,

THE

Virginia;

West

of

Amicus

for

Arizona,

Attorney

OF

OFFICE

General,

Attorney
Phoenix,

ARIZONA,

for

Alabama,

Montgomery,

Brnovich,

Mark

OFFICE

General,

Attorney

Strange,

State

Amicus

for

Virginia,

West

Charleston,

THE

OF

OFFICE

General,

VIRGINIA,

WEST

OF

GENERAL

ATTORNEY

Lin,

Attorney

Assistant

Blake,

Marie

Julie

General,

Solicitor

for

Elbert

General,

Attorney

Morrisey,

Weaver,

D. C.,

Washington,

FOUNDATION,

UNION

LIBERTIES

CIVIL

INSTITUTE,

L.

Heather

Mach,

Daniel

Appellant.

for

Texas,

FREEDOM,

LIBERTY

III,

Sasser,

S.

David

Texas;

DEFENDING

ALLIANCE

Harvey,

Hiram

Arizona;

Scottsdale,

AMERICAN

B.

Brett

Cortman,

Plano,

LEWIS &

MORGAN,

Sullivan,

Dallas,

LLP,

BOCKIUS

THE
John

Texas;

Mound,

Flower

LIBERTY,

AND

LIFE

FOR

CENTER

North

III,

Gibbs,

C.

David

BRIEF:

ON

Appellees.

AMERICAN

Raleigh,

CAROLINA,

NORTH

OF

UNION

Dallas,

LLP,

Brook,

Anderson

Christopher

Appellant.

for

NATIONAL

Luther

Shedd

Judge

which

BOCKIUS

LEWIS &

MORGAN,

Ho,

Newton

LIBERTIES

Carolina,

A.

in

opinion,

majority

opinion.

published

Judge Wilkinson wrote a dissenting opinion.

concurs.

CIVIL

Judges.

by

directions

with

the

wrote

Circuit

AGEE,

and

remanded

and

Agee

Judge

C.

SHEDD,

WILKINSON,

Before

GENERAL

Texas.

OF

Sean

S.

Washington,

CHURCH

for

AND

From

STATE,

Separation

Association,

Church

Foundation,

Union

for

D. C.,
and

League,

Interfaith

Reform

of

for

FOR

Amici

Center

SEPARATION

Alliance
and

OF

Humanist

Inquiry,

Freedom

Foundation,

Women

B.

United

Americans

American

for

LLP,

Richard

Congress.

State,

Lindsay

Gesch,

CRUTCHER

UNITED

Judaism,

Judaism.

Alex

DUNN &

Members

Washington,
of

Hungar,

AMERICANS

Lipper,

M.

G.

GIBSON,

Amici

Anti- Defamation

Religion

Coalition,

for

D. C.,

Gregory

Thomas

Balikian,

Russell

See,

Katskee,

Texas,

Dallas,

Sandoloski,

of

Sikh
Reform

Circuit

AGEE,

Board

The

delivered

its

opens

by

decision

134

Galloway,
legislative

of

the

district

Town

of

most

find

we

of

recent

Greece

v.

Board' s

the

the

reverse

and

constitutional

practice

prayer

2014),

Court'

court

Clause

Establishment

the

prayer,

1811 (

Ct.

S.

district

The

Supreme

the

legislative

explaining

judgment

Under

Carolina,

invocation

an

with

Board.

violates

North

County,

meetings

the

of

practice

Amendment.

First

Rowan

of

public

member

that

determined

Commissioners

of

Board")

the

the

Judge:

court.

I.

The

Carolina,

of

facts

relevant

month.

its municipal power through

exercises

Commissioners,

For

years

holds

typically

this

to

prior

on

commissioner,

each

permitted

which

many

Rowan

undisputed.

are

public

an elected Board
meetings

basis,

twice

Board

the

proceeding,

rotating

North

County,

to

has

an

offer

invocation before the start of the Board' s legislative agenda. l

At

meeting
the

most

to

Board

order

ceremonial

1
written

The

policy

relatively

and

invite

does

not

regarding

routine

chairperson

Board

the

opening.

record

the

meetings,

and

designated

reflect

the

audience

to

commissioner

that

invocations

practice.

would

the

but

Board

it

call

the

stand

for

would

then

adopted

followed

a
a

deliver

in

entirely

Board,

invoked

for

typical

the

so,

and

bowing

for

the

audience

their

pledge

In

of

February
Carolina

North

invocations

and

commissioners

am

This

emphasis,

Although

the

joined

the

It

not

and

also

was

let

us

required

to

of "

in

standing

remained

standing

commissioners

prayer

Jesus,"

to "

variant

some

For

form.

some

allegiance.

Board

the

did

with

not

their

stated,

perfect

opinion

omits

their

expressed

so

Civil

American

the

2012,

Board

not

with

the

by

offered

36- 37.

J. A.

content.

or

references

Id.

me."

during

asserting

commissioner

name.

heads

consistent

prayers

with

largely

sent

The

Clause.

then-

pray

please

or

pray"

begin

the

in

faith

Supp.

to

commissioner;

prayers

included

E g,

invocation

the

the

of

was

selection

prayer

Christian

the

Lord."

and

respective

in

role

no

frequently

prayers

Christ,"

the

of

invocation

each

of

the

by

followed

choosing

content

majority

overwhelming

commissioners

do

had

Board,

her

or

The

discretion

the

as

example,

his

of

allegiance.

of

pledge

The

invocation

an

of

violation

formally
intent

Christian

need

internal

to

all

marks,

but

continue

to

help

of

the

Establishment

the

faith.

the

to

objecting

respond,

continue

will

letter

Union

Liberties

For

delivering

in

can

alterations,

example,

pray
I

several

Jesus'

get,

and

citations,

and footnotes from quotations unless otherwise noted.

L'7

for

asking

and

Rowan

for

guidance

filed

Siegel,

District

of [

the

in

complaint

Board'

constitutionality

that

alleged

Plaintiffs

at

prayer

sectarian

delivering

Specifically,

10.

J. A.

the

Middle

the

for

Court

challenge

of

practice

s]

meetings[.]"

to

Carolina "

North

of

Plaintiffs")

collectively, "

District

U. S.

the

I,

Liesa

Lund,

Nancy

residents

Voelker (

Robert

and

best

the

325.

J. A.

for."

hope

County

Rowan

Subsequently,

Montag-

ever

can

County,

is

Jesus

from

decisions

my

the prayer practice unconstitutionally affiliated the Board with

one

further

Plaintiffs

Lund

attendance.

the

invocation]

2.

Voelker

also

so

that [

offered

and

stood

posited

excluded

as

that

would

she]

bowed

any

compelled

not

account,

similar

because

as

the

heads.

to

condition

to

stand [

he

most

9.

J. A.

the

of

during
J. A.

Supp.
was

and

Supp.

opposition

out."

claiming

commissioners

their

public

stand

the

of

atmosphere

overall

felt "

contents,

prayers'

participate

she

stated

participating

members

to

them

coerced

meetings

the

that

alleged

the

to

objections

their

from

Apart

feel

to

them

caused

and

12.

J. A.

outsiders."

into

faith

particular

coerced"

audience

Voelker

prayers

could

negatively affect his business before the Board.

Based

judgment

on

these

that

Establishment

Plaintiffs

allegations,

the

Clause,

Board'

along

prayer

with

an

sought

practice

injunction

declaratory

violated

the

preventing

any

future

similar

based

injunction

legislative

that

legislative

and

prayer

meetings[]

have

sectarian

prayer

The

that

holding

Greece,

although

the

transgress

insistence

fixed

on

is

legislative

judgment
In

court

in

The

acknowledged

and

doctrine [

parties

from

our]

filed

in

Id.

at

as

see

cross- motions

of

case,

and

did

1820 (`

An

single,

tradition

the

cases.");

that

valid

prayer

with

Town

id.

also

for

of

at

summary

of Town of Greece.

reviewing

repudiated"

prayer

light

in [

district

County

in

prayer

Clause.

consistent

outlined

prayer

1824.

1815,

not

recorded]

the

decision

its

ecumenical

or

policy

delivering

constitutionally

Establishment

nonsectarian

standard

issued

was

both

in

the

barring

legislative

sectarian,

clearly

approving

296.

J. A.

the

of]

faith,"

Christian

explaining

Board' s

the [

of

Joyner

See

commissioner]

the

sectarian

2011) (

Cir.

nonsectarian

970

a[

then

Court

Supreme

that

approach [

injunction

preliminary

invocations.

such

permitting

not

entered

invokes

that

is

that

with

opened

the]

it

when

only

Observing

practice").

court

to [

hewed

decisions "

our

a preliminary

violation.

4th

347 (

341,

F. 3d

for

precedent

constitutional

was

653

Cty.,

also moved

then- controlling

on

prayer

Forsyth

v.

Plaintiffs

prayers.

the

judgment

summary

that

in

Town

dismantled" "

that

of

the

motions,

the

Greece

Fourth

Supreme

Circuit' s

developed

had]

the

around

district

Court

had

legislative

the

core

was

the

the

Nonetheless,

that

court

struck

Id.

prayer."

Id.

minorities."

constitutionally

prayer

as

Although

the

the

or

went

otherwise

religious

record

remain

practice

historical

court

practice

unrefuted

room

the

emphasized

of

disfavors

prayer-

religious

on

to

seated

the

d]

during

that

the

the

whether

Establishment

Id.

exercise."

disclosed

legislative

of

consider

violate[

the

outside

practice

Board' s

the

protected

coercive

further

and

discriminates

of

delivering

closed- universe

a`

clergy,

tradition

body,

court

district

the

723.

district

the

Board' s

at

legislative

created

practice

finding

After

prayer,

The

inherently

that "

givers"

the

from

3d

that

invited

of

case

Supp.

F.

fact

and

history

this

and

103

the

instead

prayers,

standing

723.

at

Board'

the

long-

the

separate

chaplain,

the

s] everal

that `[

Lund,

thought

court

Board' s

the

down

Greece

of

unconstitutional.

district

from

deviates

Town

between

motion.

judgment

concluding

practice,

delivered

commissioners

leave

district

practice

The

724.

Clause

summary

differences"

significant

that

their

of

nature

sectarian

the

raise

not

v.

2015).

M. D. N. C.

721 (

719,

712,

3d

Lund

constitutionality.

of

invocation

legislative

at

did

part

as

prayers

rendered

Supp.

Plaintiffs

the

Moreover,

F.

103

N. C.,

Cty.,

its

of

prayers

legislative

of

nature

sectarian

dispositive"

largely

Rowan

the

that

understanding

at

724- 25.

individuals

opening

could

prayer,

the

district

court

because,

among

to

public

stand

to

leads

five

the

over

in

the

On

is

that [

Christian

prayer.
context

and

prayer

practice
practice

coercive

unconstitutionally

an

join

and

stand

Board' s]

the

In

everyone --

details

these

whole,

establish

is

always

almost

what

to

audience --

the

including

only

prayers.

ask

Commissioners

the

turn,

the

of

Board

and

prayers,

deliver

Commissioners

the

the

of

content

words,

control

complete

and

exclusive

maintains

faiths
The

Commissioners.

elected

court' s

practice

the

to

adhering

prayers

the

prayer

legislative

Board' s

the

In

invocation.

the

before

coercive

the commissioners often invited the

things,

other

nonetheless

was

conduct

Board' s

the

held

in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Id.

at

733.

Su

de

Weinbaum

2008) (

We

City

of

review

Amendment

and

F. 3d

404

constitutional

First

Board'

fact

Las

de

and

276,

its

challenge.").

prayer

280 (

541

Cir.

4th

F. 3d

district

ultimate

district

Cty.

2005);

1017,

court'

granted

permanent

practice.

Chesterfield

entered

the

review

we

Cruces,

novo

and

legislative

Simpson

novo.

visors,
er_

judgment

summary

appealed,

timely

decision

the

barring

injunction

Board

for

motion

Plaintiffs'

court

district

the

analysis,

this

on

Based

1029 (

conclusions

The

court'

Bd.

of

see

also

10th

Cir.

findings

regarding

of

II.

A.

instances,

756,

760 (

the

approved

not

precedent

acknowledging

of

citizens

the

only

Establishment

the

of

their

Clause

and

it

which

In

government.").

expressly

with

line

clear

of

prayer,

together

bring

to

participate

to

contrast

legislative

U. S.

sessions

can

them

encourage

jurisprudence,

has

legislative

of

practice

in

ways

is

There

347 ("

at

the

upholding

backgrounds

all

workings

F. 3d

653

Joyner,

See

prayer.

life.

413

Nyquist,

legislative

opening

of

practice

some

public

Court

the

here,

Pertinent

1973).

in

v.

the

in

government,

Liberty

of

one

State,"

and

religion

commemorate

Religious

Educ &

Pub

for

that

acknowledged

properly

may

Comm

but

has

Court

Supreme

been

not

Church

between

separation

sanitized

entirely

has

history

Nation' s

this

Recognizing `

other

stands

prayer

in

on

its

own distinct ground owing to its historically based practice

and

acceptance.

While

Turner

speech,

354 (

4th

unique

463

legislative

Cir.

783 (

paid

of

chaplain

the

has

Court

evident

involved

Nebraska

offer

in

of

to

F. 3d

stressed

always

Marsh

government

534

challenge

open

each

352,

its

Chambers,

v.

legislature' s

prayer

10

type

Fredricksburg,

of

was

which

generally

Supreme

status

1983),

is

Council

the

That

constitutionality

having

City

2008),

status.

U. S.

prayer

to

practice

the

of

legislative

403

Court

f]

history [

session

each

explained

they

Clause

Establishment

hardly

be

to

at

interpretation

threat

to

the

of

Having
next

what

unique

the

upheld

Amendment

Clause

Id.

at

legislative

considered

the

whether

Court]

draftsmen

arising

acceptable."

to

accept
saw

the]

prayer

specific

in

general,

features

of

protection.

practice

can

no

the
real

practice

791.

constitutional

fell

It

Establishment

who

from [

the

viewed

declared

just

history [ led

First

prayer."

had

they

Court

prayer. "

the

and

Id.

the

Founders

intended

open

1789.

in

legislative

they

Establishment

legislative]

Court

forbid

This

790.

to

relation

to

of

Senate

The

events,

the

items

early

chaplain

these

how

that ...

thought

Clause ...

in

its

chaplains

to

on

light

shed

of

787- 88-

at

official

significance

great

Ascribing

Id.

appointed

at

Court

The

786.

S.

selecting

of

policy

prayer."

with

turn,

in

House,

the

adopted

business,

one

as

Congress,

First

the

that `

noted

U.

463

Marsh,

since."

ever

the

of

founding

the

through

times

its

traced

Court

Supreme

the

prayer,

with

opening

of

tradition

American

standing

colonial

rom

and

Republic

long-

the

sessions

legislative

of [

Supreme

The

disagreed.
Recounting

Id.

such

concluded

Clause.

Establishment

the

violated

invocations

had

Circuit

Eighth

the

1971),

602 (

S.

U.

Kurtzman,

v.

Lemon

from

test

three- part

the

Applying

session.

outside

11

the

Marsh

Nebraska'

In

that

selected

representative

of `

chaplain

was

his

prayers

Id.

at

noting

long

from

and

practice"

of

content

the

to

or

That

on

embark

particular

The

during
holiday

the

the

so,"

prayer."

course

displays

Court

of

at

or

it

view."

or

to

the

was

historic

the

for

As

was "

of

not

the

prayer

any

advance

or

the

his

with

in

Id.

belief."

parse

thus

chaplain

that

concluded

Court

and

794.

proselytize

faith

Supreme

it

794-

at

would

content

not

of

795.

referenced

later

ruling

located

at

explained

to

evaluation

Id.

the

indication

no

other,

any

sensitive

Supreme

is

exploited

disparage

Id.

Court

the

there

been

being

the

placing

conflict

grounded

similarly

prohibited.

not

motive,"

That

793- 94.

at

was

prayers,

has

opportunity

95. "

thus

because "

concern"

one,

funds

public

claims,

religious

one

itself

in

not

Id.

Clause."

Establishment

impermissible

an

did "

appointment

continuous

paid

from

stemmed

tenure "

tradition."

there was no evidence that the chaplain' s

Moreover,

792.

at

on

approval

of

seal

iii)

and (

three

all

symbolically

as

or

activity

official

sixteen

did not consider opening prayers

Congress

First

the

that

rejected

Court

for

employee;

Judeo- Christian

the

in

"

state

paid

had

Nebraska

i)

denomination"

one

only

Supreme

The

792- 93.

government'

Id.

offered

were

proselytizing

as

the

ii)

years; (

challenges:

three

raised

plaintiff

the

regard,

on

on

the

propriety

public

12

its

holding
of

property

two

in

in

Marsh

religious

County

of

that `

observed

or

Ct.

The

of

requires

standard

at

comply

disavowed

Court

must

be

with

the

of

and

neutral

Establishment

Court' s

Supreme

this

is

not

in [

the

with

consistent

Town

cases."

our]

tradition

of

of

Greece,

1820.

case,

case-

circumstances.

1984) (

prayers

to

God

outlined

prayer

legislative

review

generic

only

the

Town

in

approach

this

holdings,

earlier

legislative

that

fixed

single,

S.

faith

An insistence on nonsectarian or ecumenical prayer as a

Clause:

134

its

Clarifying

requirement

rejected

flatly

Court

Supreme

reference

the

have

specific

one

any

with

prayer

fleeting validity those observations may have had,

Whatever

Greece.

government

also

Id.

belief."

the

the

affiliating

of

effect

Court

that

prayers

legislative

had

legislative

of

the

chaplain

The

603.

at

history

unique

contemporary

justify

can

the

even

not

Id.

Christ."

to

references

all

violate

not

particular

the

because

Clause]

Establishment

did

Marsh

in

involved

prayers

legislative

t] he

that [

noted

Court

the

prayer

legislative

about

commenting

Marsh,

in

permitted

practice

removed

dicta

In

1989).

602 (

79,

578-

573,

U. S.

492

Chapter,

Pittsburgh

Greater

ACLU

Allegheny

which,

specific

See

observing

decision

Town

in

Greece

of

guides

like other legislative prayer cases,

evaluation

Lynch

v.

that

the

of

Donnelly,

465

Establishment

13

the

all

U.

S.

facts

668,

Clause

and

678- 79

cannot

be

mechanistically

for

the

we

turn

to

of

contexts

varying

unwavering,

To

life).

public

review

that

guide

Court'

Supreme

the

of

examination

fuller

lines

universal

draw

to

applied

discussion in Town of Greece.

town

The

with

an

Greece

of

by

chaplains

guest

Town

directory.

in

of

the

local

in

givers

town

The

to

guide

court

Christian

Although the

Beginning

that

is

district
Second

the

the

of

drumbeat

steady

Establishment

Id.

Clause.

of

with

town

the

affiliate

to

tended

violation

the `

that

concluded

at

The Supreme Court reversed.

1818.

the

id.

not

with

Establishment

historical

also

in

prayer-

practice

prayer ...

Christianity,"

to

and

disagreed

Circuit

the

of

the

constitutional

town'

the

found

all

clergy,

aspect

some

Id.

prayer.

listed

guest

the

were

attempt

no

made

solicited

Nearly

1816.

at

referenced

the

of

content

the

as

Christian,

invocations

faith.

Christian

were

meetings

congregations

Ct.

S.

134

It

clergy.

local

to

calls

Greece,

of

churches

most

thus

and

placing

legislative

monthly

volunteer

by

delivered

invocation

its

opened

at

practices

Establishment

of

Clause

must

and

Marsh

1818- 19. "

necessary

summary

to

Clause

the

stands

the

history

14

Court

interpreted

be

understandings."

define

where

Marsh,

for

the

precise

shows

Id.

by
at

explained

reference

1819;

proposition

boundary

that

the

that

of

see

it

the

specific

is

practice

fits

the

adopt[] [

for

that

accepted

was

invocations

Court

as

this

the

point,

of

interpretation

and

written

are

Marsh

of

themes

nowhere

prayer

legislative

were

or

Id.

that

the

ecumenical

with [

our

On

1820.

nonsectarian"

s `

disputed

Id.

cases."

at

when

1821;

the

that

suggested

on

accepted

today,

at

was

turns

under

legislative

vibrant

Allegheny'

later

argument

consistent

not

dictum "

by

critical

the

neutrality

content.").

The

force

as

repudiated

id. (

constitutionality

its

Marsh

the

that

prayer."

disavowed

practice

nonsectarian

or

nonsectarian

is

standard

we]

plaintiffs'

remain

and

legislative

Court

been

has

also

see

of

tradition

accepted

the

religious

on

and

test [

ny

at

Id.

Observing

Congress

fixed

single,

withstood

generic

insistence

a]

concluded, [

prayer

of

first

the

of

be

a]

acknowledge

has

rejected

explicitly

containing

time

the

must

practice

Congress

in

added, "[

change."

Clause.

Establishment

the

Court

prayer

legislative

that

political

the

thus,

Rooted

at

and

the

followed

must

and

Framers

the

by

inquiry in

pertinent

whether

Court

The

invocations]

analyzing

time

of

scrutiny

Id.

legislatures."

state

is

long

tradition

the

within

The

1819.

at

therefore,

cases,

prayer

legislative

issue "

Id.

permitted."

Court

the

asked

further

legislatures

to

decide

observed

that

that

sponsor

these

cases

15

content-

prayers

to

act

based

and

as

the

rule "

would

courts

supervisors

that

and

line

of

practice

criticizing

invites

content

their

in

prayers

nor

advance

it

Once

stated,

Court

the

sphere,"

far

current

Id.

fact."

the

after

public

the

into

prayer

approving

or

editing

neither

town'

the

under

case

the

is

than

degree

greater

to

matters

religious

such

Enforcing

1822.

at

in

government

involve

would

Id.

speech."

religious

of

censors

government must permit a prayer giver to address his or her own

God

or

administrator

judge

be

to

considers

an

what

by

unfettered

dictates,

conscience

as

gods

or

Id.

nonsectarian."

at

1822- 23.

to

the

the

at

lend

gravity

practice

be

could

there

cautioned

Id.

heritage."

failed

its]

serve[] [

long

so,

Even

1823.

circumstance

to "

at

where

is

it

where

values

reflect

and

occasion

the

to

sessions,

from

derives

constraint

relevant

served

historically

has

prayer

legislative

of

opening

Nation' s

prayer

t] he

function, [

ceremonial

place

legislative

that

Noting

legitimate

its

meant

part

of

Court

the

legislative

function":

If the course and practice over time shows that the invocations
nonbelievers

denigrate

damnation,

or

preach

Synthesizing

offered

on

Christian,

these

behalf

did

proselytization.

of

not

Id.

conversion[.]"

factors,

the

town,

evidence

See

id. (

the

any
Our

16

threaten

minorities,

religious

or

at

Court

1823.
held

although

pattern

tradition

that

almost

of

the

prayers

exclusively

denigration

assumes

that

or

adult

two

in

prayers

to

only

prayers,

to

least

at

disparaging

contained

t] he

judgments

should

the

the

sponsor

religion

that

approach.

Lastly,

the

Court

to

make

is

of

far

of

non-

religious

views

inappropriate

it]

with

government

more

for

borders

religious

wholly

frequency

form

the

Constitution

the

achieve

religions

of

number

to

as

observed

diversity

relative

each,

current

its

effort

an

town

the

about
and

sponsor

promote

the

require

would

with

to

quest

beyond

no

invited

long

s]

was

the

that

Christian: "[

search

in

givers

fact

the

nondiscrimination,

Continuing,

Id.

balancing."

to

it

require

prayer

from

predominantly

of

there

determined

also

arising

policy

maintains

Christian

Court

the

were

prayer- givers

not

1824.

defect

constitutional

constitutional

no

of

deviating

few

meetings.

were

explained,

at

Id.

Relatedly,

does

arguably

of

person

pointed

plaintiffs

board

the

solemnize

Court

the

consequence.

town

the

that

record

by

perhaps

and

the Court concluded that the prayer practice as a whole

content,

served

the

tolerate

can

delivered

prayer

Though

faith.").

different

beliefs,

own

ceremonial

appreciate

their

in

firm

citizens,

should

which

it

entanglement

troublesome

than

the

Id.

the

prayers

Court

unconstitutionally "

Id. (

nonadherents."

jettisoning

the

addressed

this

J.,

Kennedy,

argument,

the

17

plaintiffs'

coerce

participation

that

by

opinion).

In

acknowledged

that

plurality

Court

contention

could

coercion"

in

protection

in

differed

id.

Compare

their

concurring

the

J.,

plurality

audience

of

approach

country,

and

in

being

plurality
Thomas'

Justice

that

Id.

purpose

state

Establishment

of

of

not

Clause

no

the

town' s

to

prayers

was

mind

rather

than

Justice

they

violation

is

Kennedy
to

not

of

put

this

of

these

practice
they

have

legislators

an

further

out

any

effect

stated

time

on

that

Adults

Id. "

disagreeable;

made

are

allegiance,

prayer

coercion."

find

in

God

Furthermore,

Id.

the

observers

because

that,

in

historical

the

pledge

the

Kennedy,

coercion

on

the

equate

1825 (

at

reasonable

participate.

1826.

speech

found

concluded

appreciate

to

Id.

arises

prayer

acknowledging

prayer,

They

could

at

that

the

which

and

fact- sensitive

as

heavily

traditions

legislative

does

encounter

Justices

presumed

prayers.

the

inquiry
in

Roberts

Justice

Chief

relied

and

compelled

ffense ...

often

coercion.

Kennedy' s
of

directed."

is

These

multiple

citizens

observers.

o]

II.

setting

it

They

contemplative

Justice

by

coercion

the

whom

including

traditions,

observed

to

Marsh.

presidential

without

both

practice

the

of

aware

the

opinion).

prayer

joined

framed

considers

and

town'

of
Sec.

1837- 38 (

at

Kennedy,

Alito,

that

II. B

Sec.

justices

the

But

constituted

what

of

constitutional

opinion).

Justice

one

id.

prayer beyond

circumstances.

understandings

1824- 28 (

at

legislative

outlier

some

with

opinion),

Justice

render

and

an

person

experiences

religious

sense

in

views

With

these

of

from

affront

legislative

expression

forum."

from

principles

the

Town

of

contrary

Id. 3
in

Greece

of

mind,

we

now

to

the

apply them to the facts presented here.

III.

Legislative

First

Amendment

types

other

that

of

government

See

that

constitutionality

historical

our

precedence,

been "

Town

people

this

the

Justices

coercion,"
power

in

Thomas

which

134

record,

Id.

S.

in

Ct.
the

and

Scalia,
as

or

on

1837 (

As

no

J.,

such

be

upheld.

Id.

at

19

held

court

of

has

the

the

reviewing

interpreted

actual
of "

legal

government

church,

doctrine."

practice

compel

Town

concurring in part
evidence was present

1837- 38.

of

as

among

hand,

only "

they concurred in the holding that

should

it

view

exercise

religious

Thomas

exercise

acknowledge

support

its

legislatures,"

state

other

on

fabric

the

prayer

reflects

hinges

of

widely

the

the

as

Greece

must

prohibiting

control

judgment).

the

must

Establishment

prayer

court

prayer "

the

of

1818- 19.

at

financial

exact

at

defined

they

and

legal setting than

part

If

beliefs

of

Clause

observance,

concurring
practice

to

order

religious

Greece,

that

country."

Town

become

1819.

Congress

reflects

Establishment

792.

legislative

at

legislative

to

challenge

touching

at

relative

status

conduct

it " has

acknowledgement

of

in

unique

different

of

Ct.

in

U. S.

as

S.

followed

tolerable

the

134

Greece

of

463

Marsh,

society."

long

it

places

Clause.

the

has

thus

prayer

of
and

in

the town' s prayer

that

was

that

would

new

time

of

scrutiny

the

by

accepted

and

political

sweep

away

controversy

and

lines

religious

that

Framers

begin

the

the

withstood

Id.

change."

has

what

has

and

critical

1819. "

at

test

so long been settled would create

the

anew

Establishment

divisions

very

Clause

to

seeks

along

prevent."

Id.

Town

Following
that

acknowledge

is

compatible

remains

in

dispute

this

feature

722.

its

In

legislative

Id.

Supreme

At

oral

Argument

at
at

What

the

of

makes

court

found

Supp.

3d

member

determinative

of

at

the

difference."

decision

bright- line

F.

as

general

practice

103

Lund,

court'

Clause.

district

status

and "

district

imposing

its

has

prohibition

the

has

argument

Board

the

never

17: 10- 17: 32

and

before

before

this

sectarian

meetings

was

district

the

conclusion,

Court

agreed

specifically
prayers

crucial"

as

prayers

The

See

prayer- giver'

The

of

such

correctly

the

on

prayer.

reaching

the

a"

724.

effect

lawmaker- led

In

is

body"

prayer,

Board'

difference.

dispositive.

the

view,

722,

at

practical

that

largely

the

delivering

constitutional

parties

Establishment

whether

commissioners

substantive

the

with

is

both

legislative

sectarian

matter,

elected

Greece,

of

not

20: 10- 21: 24.

20

sanctioned

Court,

aspect
an

court

of

issue

the
the

they

observed

legislator-

Plaintiffs

invocation
raise.

Oral

led

the

and

opinion

opinion

legislative

discussed

ministers,

described

gave

the

lawmaker- led

Supreme

as

prayer

the

Supreme

providing

In

722.

at

Court'

consistently

terms

the

not

themselves

district

the

essence,

on

silence

from

legislators

excluding

conclusively

and

prayer,

jurisprudential

invited

of

legislators

the

which

Court

in

practices

in

Id.

invocation."

the

Marsh,

volunteers

situation

treated

in

prayer

or

clergy,

once

court

is telling that throughout its Town of Greece

I] t

prayers: "[

being permissible prayer- givers to their own legislative bodies.

That

conclusion
Town

While

clergy

analysis

S.

and

Court

Ct.

say

concerned

at

prayer

1816;

that

focus

to

Id.

of

at

1819.

Town

been

without

We

lawmaker- led

find

prayer

U. S.

463

could

of

reasonably

givers

Greece

done

in

limitation

the

Supreme

be

21

See

be

clergy

Supreme

Court

Town

of

Nowhere

regarding

that:

Greece,
did

and

the

silence

silence.

on

the

as

the

only

prayer.

directs

specifically

Congress

facts

construed

are

its

in

the

to

legislative

of

Court'

simply

local

identities

784- 85.

at

any

to

it.

retained

or

the

discussion

before

outside

has

speakers'

practices

permissible

what

the

of

group

rotating

chaplain,

paid

to

its

that

opposite,

legislatures"

involved

confined

Marsh,

anything

constitutionally

the

Greece

simply

the

requirement

Quite

supportable.

significance

no

surrounding
134

not

of

Marsh

and

attached

is

the

our

state

officiant.

the

See

issue

United

States

it

Court' s

improper

be

would

silence

on

has

this

Nor

of

suggested

this

invocations

have

always,

part

of

is]

the

in

rather

than

the

government

286.

content

with

any

that

the

the

of

one

these

Supreme

the

that

delivery

difficulty,
F. 3d

350;

at

prayer,

faith

specific

cases

was

or

prayer

Board

in

of

Marsh

affiliate

404

belief."

was

at

prayer- giver,

would

turned

who

id.

also

neither

what

ultimately

sectarian

those

not

the

i] t

sectarian

County

of

Cir.

that "[

of

see

Court, "

identity

been

4th

302 (

observed

Chesterfield

v.

that

held

Although

the

on

F. 3d

now-

constitutionally

none made the prayer- giver' s identity dispositive.

invalid,

On

noted

position

653

brief

explained,

292,

County
the

constitutional

Simpson

Allegheny,

rejected

and

we

for

setting

F. 3d

v.

business

public

carefully

376

Forsyth

v.

invocation."

in

And

Supervisors,

at

the

gave

actually

the

courted

so

heritage."

governmental

that

351.

Joyner

Similarly,

prayers

nor

Nation'

Court

Marsh

Wynne

officials'

in

engaging

have

we

in

example,

the

to

weight

ublic

p]

Supreme

the

contrary,

For

that "[

before

Almighty

the

as

our

2004).

the

of

irrelevant.

remarking

it).

the

To

remarked

we

from

assigned

previously

is

1981) (

Cir.

placed before

prayer- giver.

Falls,

9th

inference

any

issue not

feature

Great

of

draw

to

Court

the

identity

Town

an

180 (

178,

F. 2d

650

Stewart,

v.

broader

tradition"

level,

anchoring

and

the

more

importantly,

Supreme

22

Court'

the

very "

holding

in

history
Town

of

Greece

underscores

legislative

prayer

religious

have

that

intend

not

by
as

the

to

the

legislators" (

674 ("

all

just

the

of

32- 376,

No.

even

added));

in

see

elected

form

of

public

did

devotion

character

465

Lynch,

of

1853)

Clause "

religious

their

also

4(

at

Establishment

the

prayer

permissible

expression

nation,

emphasis

of

only

by

offered

as

Rep.
of

authors

prohibit

legislators

S.

not

lawmaker- led

of

accepted

See

observance.

commenting

but

invocations

been

long

practice

standing

generally

Opening

specifically.
legislators

long-

U. S.

at

There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by

branches

three

American

South

its

from

life

1789.").

least

Congress --

invocations.

Thanks

an

See

of

role

just

South

elected

South

religion

Carolina'

member

to

in

the

example,

one

first

deliver

Provincial

Carolina

Congress (

Continental

the

to

As

welcomed

legislature --

opening

Congress,

at

the

of

government

Provincial

Carolina

independent

of

11,

Jan.

1775),

http:// amarch. lib. niu. edu/ islandora/ object/ niu- amarch%3A94077

last

Aug.

visited

The

attachment). "

founders

own

404 (

of

the

handiwork."

4th

Cir.

2016

and

as

saved

ECF

opinion

recognition of religion in these early public

important,

is

pronouncements

31,

United

Myers

States

v.

unless

were

Loudoun

2005).

23

we

unable

Cty.

to

are

Sch.

to

presume

understand

Bd.,

418

F. 3d

the

their

395,

This

day.

modern

honor

tradition

invocation.
Inside

www.

See

the

may

offer

under

legislative
id.;

to

for

Br.

is

prayer

utilize

152 (

to -

State

in

2011- 2014,

the

North

at

Carolina

2002),

observing

thirty- one
in

for

this

2;

ten

purpose.

Amici

as

the

the

of

Addend.

House

http://

prevalent

al.

14 &

opening

Legislatures,

seven

et

an

least

at

members

Va.

Defendant- Appellant

Offered

where

W.

of

in

to

assemblies

pdf (

especially

elected

give

State

of

prayer

opening

jurisdiction,

our

chambers

Supporting

nchouse-

Conference

5- 151

continued

territorial

and

legislators

Process

an

Lawmaker- led

states).

Prayers

National

Legislative

legislators

See

state

individual

has

prayer

org/ documents/ legismgt/ ILP/ 02Tab5Pt7.

ncsl.

states

of

majority
from

requests

legislative

of

Curiae

see

also

Representatives:

of

http:// nchousespeaker. com/ docs/ opening- prayers-

2011- 2014.

pdf (

last

visited

July

12,

2016).

Several

of

these states have enacted legislation recognizing the historical

practice

protects

legislative

of

legislators

deliberative

Carolina

meetings

Mich.

H. R.

sessions.

expressly
with

Representatives

16 (

to

who

deliver

See

Va.

See

S. C.

requiring
arrange "

at the beginning of each session).

24

Virginia

statute

prayer

during

sectarian

15. 2- 1416. 1.

elected

Code

the

for

example,

Code

its

authorizes

prayer.

Rule

For

prayer.

Member

officials

6- 1- 160( B)(

clerk of
to

And

the

1);

South

to

open

see

also

Michigan House

offer

an

of

invocation"

Lawmaker- led

federal

members

2015,

the

Senate

replete

with

similar

daily

ed.

Cowan);

155

Cong.

statement

Byrd,

have,

from

view

legislators

district

Supreme

Court'

has

withstood

aptly

practice

the

of

legislative

critical

Greece,

explained, "

Establishment

that "[

if

there

Clause]

prayer,

134

the

test[]

was

Ct.

is

any
and

barring

wall

runs

headlong

a]

test [

ny

time

of

1819.

at

we]

Robert

of

C.

the

Senators

As

the

historic

calls

into

elected

into

the

adopt[]

Framers

and

inconsistency

inconsistency
25

1973)

lawmaker- led

of

accepted by the

scrutiny
S.

M.

2009)

History

tradition

invocations

that

18,

1990) ("

ed.,

judicial

William

also

the

Rec.

prayer.").

varied

acknowledgement

acknowledge a

Town

court'

religious

must

change."

and

the

see

on

Wolff

Wendy

delivered

long

III);

record

17, 441 (

Rec.

in

Cong.

Cong.

Dec.

ed.

Cong.

Hudnut

161

Sen.

by

daily

119

business

159

g.,

May

as

congressional

e.

prayer

Addresses

305 (

time,

this

from

H.

1789- 1989:

to

of

the

prayer,

Barrasso);

Senate

time

2013) (

William

Senate

States

In

John

See,

the

allow

recently

Jesus.

of

The

513401- 01 (

Rec.

As

name

2015).

examples.

4,

June

Rep.

of

The

United

Sen.

23,

the

Congress

of

legislative

commenced

invoking

May

ed.

53915 (

by

Lankford

houses

invocation.

opening

prayer

daily

Both

in

validation

contemporary

well.

an

James

with

53313 (

prayer

as

deliver

Senator

Rec.

is

government

to

finds

prayer

and

political

Justice

Alito

between

practice

question

any

of

the

Alito,

J.,

forfeits

in

result

been

be

cannot

In

but

prayer

or

thereby

plurality
Not

who

the

Court

for

to

citizen

has

lawmakers

of

sets

who

the

our

that

that

society"

is

to

seems

of

higher
1825 (

Id.

legislators

themselves

at

have

indeed,

that

governing."

to

Greece. "

not,

find

may

mind

court

Town

invocations

legislative

the

who

for

often

thousands

whom "

hold

prayer

as

is

singled

serve

but

prayer,

of

state

In

representatives.

specifically

they

legislative

the

are

meaning

commissions,

values

in

principle

these

of

district

the

themselves,

task

practices

moment

purpose

Kennedy,

The

the

of

and
J.,

opinion).

only

are

for

framework

fabric

the

of

prayer

because

status

prayer

to

1819.

decision,

reflection

quiet

legislative

1834

decline

we

legal

at

legislative

protected

part

foundational

congregation"

special

its

lawmakers

eases

at

advice,

that

view

down

as "

Id.

audience

public

invocation.

the

accepted

reaching

principal

court'

Id.

practice."

this

Heeding

striking

correct.

ignored

wholly

historic

the

constitutionally

delivers

long

not

district

its

legislator

have

test,

concurring).

the

accept

would

the

of

validity

out

part-

ceremonial

and

this

time

and

local

citizens."

intended

to

intended

carries

legislators

the

Supreme

of

town

boards

and

as

volunteers,"

as

reflect

may ...

private

allow

practice

respect,

members

prayer

26

the

the

Id.

1826.

at

lawmakers

to

show

the

If

who

and

they

what

that

they

that

concern

district

legislator

was

the

turn

not

and

legislative

fellow

are

in

prayer

fact

the

the

perhaps

on

legislators.

is

prayer

least

at

that

reason

intended

the

heartfelt

determination

for

legislators

their

to

stands

prayers

uplifting,

themselves

to

the

offered,

forged

whether

analyzing

constitutional

implicitly

its

acknowledges

selection

of

bare

that

significant

context

this

of

some

legislative

the

set

Snyder,

the

F. 3d

constitutional

Court

limits

1233 ("

on

for

beyond

goes

at

has

acceptable

guideposts

practice

159

protective

all

out

of

lawmaker- led

Supreme

for

template

facet

other

that

outside

particular

See

some

fact

case

decisions

bounds.

whether

Although

prayer.

comprehensive

prayer,

of

the

this

takes

legislative

of

question

beyond

practice,

legislative

and

offer

court'

such

Indeed,

distinction,

now

is

umbrella

Id.

it

then

error.

Board'

prayer

lead

to

able

delivers

constitutional

forum,

public

to

qualified

The

We

themselves.

uniquely

case,

be

should

audience:

matters

in

are"

Marsh

the

scope

prayers[.]").

1.

An

content

position

initial

of

guidepost

legislative

that

relates

In

prayer.

invocations

must

27

be

to

the

selection

rejecting

the

nonsectarian,

of

the

plaintiffs'

the

Supreme

in

Court

the

Town

Greece

of

legislatures

that

that

explained

sponsor

such

prayers

the

and

would

rule "

force

that

courts

are

asked to decide these cases to act as supervisors and censors of

religious

Court

continued, "

to

far

current

nor

The

invalid

that "

reasoned

that

prayers

define

permissible

Greece,

134

What

context

to

Id. (

same

act

S.

the

Ct.

We

concerns

emphasis

of

categories

at

1822 (

Supreme

103

is [

thus

the

added).

To

be

and

the "

of

has

the

and

sure,

3d

act

own

religious

by

practice

simply

government [

It

delivering

prayer

Board

as

723.

at

controlled

Board'

their

by

so

improperly]

The

the

here,

without

does

not

to

attempting]
Town

speech."

of

added).

cautioned

legislatures

supervisors

Supp.

was

commissioners

doing

F.

prepared

emphasis

Court

by

in

Id.

practice

individual

and

gives

town' s

prayers

fact."

Board'

matters

the

under

the

the

outcome,

approving

the

the

disagree.

an

religious

case

after

Lund,

direction

or

is " for[ cing]

as ...

because

exclusively

commissioner

the

content

government

in

or

editing

prayers."

the

input,

oversight,

present

the

Id.

each

the

invocations,

were

government[.]"

is

determined

standard

own

of

their

Such

government

than

neither

1822.

at

involve

court

this

their

supervisors

where

of

district

author

Ct.

degree

criticizing

under

S.

would

greater

practice

advance

134

speech."

that

censors

in

of

against

sponsor

the

this

prayers ..

religious

offering

in

speech."

invocations

individual

the

looked

to

the

legislative

considering

it

is

to

1822.

role

There

in

devoid

but

is

anything

in

accord with

In

ministers

in

invocations

Clause

merely

v.

do

not

related

Town

of

own

Greece

own

Supreme

allows

bear

536

U. S.

Mueller

tax

Greece, [

v.

Allen,

the

In

463

nce

it

in

at

had

any
The

this

case

acting

the

like

in

Marsh

this

religious

388,

Supreme

prayer

acts,

those

See

Zelman

1983) (

Court

into

of

policy or

school

399 (

gave

element

government

2002) (

who

the

Establishment

other

imprimatur.

U. S.

invites

P.'

Board,

agent

stressed

652 (

As

deductions).

o]

state'

639,

moral

Ct.

S.

commissioner

chaplain

private

enables

or

of

code

prayer

free

has

Court

or

views.

is

the

writing

134

for

commissioners.

each

choosing.

necessarily

income

of

personal

and

as

any

holding that when a neutral

Simmons- Harris,

programs);

creation

commissioner

of

the

contexts,

program

her

their

of

choice,

or

each

Town

private

acts

his

Board,

that

or

Greece,

of

in

whole

impermissibly

would

individual

suggestion

any

personal

the

the

by

prayers

of

effect,

that

evidence

no

the

of

any
is

record

is

Town

content.

selected

with

always

sense;

body

belief

of

perfect

makes

government

system

preferred

promote

behavior"

that

as

deliberative

the

of

act

speech

religious

editing

seek "

through

only

This

prayer.

personal

has

Court

the

legislature

the

of

activities

their

convey

But

faith.

particular

with

alignment

sometimes

commissioners

voucher

school-

stated

the

in

public

her

an

God

own

administrator

at

Ct.

be

to

considers

address

unfettered

his

by

or

what

134

nonsectarian."

S.

1822- 23.

Board' s

The

than

more

judge

or

to

giver

dictates,

conscience

as

gods

or

prayer

permit

must

government

sphere,

legislative

individual

an

leading

commissioner

to

amounts

practice

prayer

prayer

nothing

his

of

or

her own choosing.

2.

in

discussed

refrain

of

Town

from

becoming

legislative

be

legislative

prayer

protection.

Id.

the

that

constitutional

fall

and

Court

short

to

of

sectarian

invocations

line

the

end,

the

to

fall

the

course

denigrate

crossed.

many

present

desire

in

to

their

courts

legislative

may

prayer,

30

cause

effort."

assure

from

constitutional

over

time

religious

or

that

purpose

viewed

could

conversion,"

consider

the

only

there

and practice

In

should

substance

references

preach

common

need

that

outside

Id.

elevate

the

nonbelievers

or

be

can

noted

sectarian

After

courts

of

review

Court

damnation,

lawmakers

this

If

1823. `

observed, `

unite

To

where

practice

threaten

minorities,

the

at

in

prayer

content.

lower

that

Marsh

Supreme

the

prayer,

its

concerns

embroiled

circumstances

certain

shows

in

legislative

acceptable

Greece

of

holding

the

reaffirming

to

guidepost

second

circumstance,

the

of

prayer

the

to

occasion

Id.

themselves

that

cumulative

is not being exploited to proselytize or disparage.

perspective,

Below

this

in

interest

the

the

content

content

of

Supreme

the

embark

on

particular

has

Court

legislative

of

disinclination " to

strong

parse

threshold,

disclaimed

invocations,

sensitive

announcing

evaluation
463

Marsh,

prayer."

any

or

U. S.

to

at

795.

The

did

practice

line,

29- 31.

There

it

those

to

to

The

content

such

is

convert

constitutionally
belittle

to

of another
in

of

Jesus'

in

the

to

offensive

any

another

Board'

376

Wynne,

convert'

record

prayer- giver'

And

that

bear

in

hearer

to

faith;

and

even

none

J. A.

who

may

it

were,

cites

fact

portend

the

belittling

or

their

to

of

those

there

the

change

and

Supp.

dissent

common

that

thanks

See

faith

the

belief

References

asking

if

300

largely

consisted

of

at

to

prayers

Amen."

name.

F. 3d

giving

typically

the

line

others

commissioners'

as

prayer

religious

deliberations.

concepts

prayer

the

particular

such

in

prayers

convert

those

the

of

differently.

four

The

attempt

no

that

constitutional

See

to `

themes,

In

as

of

seek

guidance

believe

who

behalf

Christian

closing

hear

on

divine

exclusively

this

disparagement.

or

universal

requesting

reflects

across

means

belief[.]").

encompassed

case

stray

proselytize'

necessarily

giver

this

not

proselytization

To `

in

record

that

faith;
that

is

as
none
none

person

faith would be treated any differently by the prayerthe

business

of

the

Board.

Continued)
31

In

short,

none

of

those

the

practice

Town

controls.

of

impermissible

constitutional

S.

Ct.

likely

not

will

pattern

an

solely

on

establish

based

challenge

betray

or

proselytize,

purpose,

Absent

1824 ("

at

which

violation.").

delivered

invocation

October

Board' s

the

at

17,

2011,

illustrative of what the Board members and the public

is

meeting

134

prayer

of

incidents --

isolated

few

not

denigrate,

time

over

government

content

The

Greece,

of

that

prayers

the

whole --

as

in Rowan County would hear:

Let

us

for

you

for

take

we

today,

good,

and

We

you

that

pray

will

they

God,

that

We'

J. A.

Supp.

that

prayer

Town

sway

of

Such

out

Greece.

and

prayers

prayer

bounds

of

Prayers

that

press

the

nonbelievers

instruction

cited

is

may

bears

read

the

are

not

suffering

and

make

and

thank

we

pray

We pray for

help.

tonight,

glorify
us

give

us,

things

you

you.

wisdom

and

it.

In

near

the

for

Amen.

name.

31.

ll

the
we

them;

will

honor

would

you

understanding.

Jesus'

we

the

thank

given

times

for

to

us

that

decisions

the

all

for

We

ve

as

are

pray

help

would

for

economic

people

many

without.

that

We

the

you'

Lord,

granted.

paper

doing

strength,

and

thank you

tonight.

day

beautiful

the

do

here

being

of

health

for

Father we

pray.

privilege

not

merit

any

of

comes

nowhere

under

the

chastise

limits

standards

dissenters

of

the

question set out in Town of Greece.

32

hallmarks

of

announced

in

attempt

to

or

Supreme

the

constitutional

realm

protection,

of

Court'

but

no

constitutional

been

have

prayers

such

F. 3d

1235 (

Snyder,

159

prayers

unconstitutional

views"

religious

other

Plaintiffs

hundreds
As

an

of

brief (

innocuous
463

U. S.

into

the

betray

an

solely

on

of

impermissible

the

no

in

whole

are

reflects

Town

line.

embraces

at

to "

our

33

Plaintiffs'

in

Plaintiffs'

than

1824. "

which

or

based

establish

tone

largely

of

crossed

that

practice

mirror

practice

holding

tradition").

into

Absent

challenge

respectful

an

requires

the

despoil

an

quoting

likely

1824 (

Marsh.

proselytize,

Board' s

and

austere

not

here,

the

Greece,

insufficient

and

will

Given

id.

at

purpose,

prayer

See

Ct.

S.

the

meetings.

rather

whole,

that

of

out

upheld

denigrate,

delivered

of

is

Greece "

of

134

Id.

invocations

identified

remarks

violation."

constitutional

stray

the

the

as

government

of

content

in

dissenting) (

Town

time

over

cited

Regardless,

prayer."

that

audience").

Board

dissent)

J.,

opportunity

single

prayers

constitutional

all

of

Stevens,

proffered

examples

before

invocations

against

misguided.

prayer

few

content

the

by

his

Christianity

prayer).

is

focus

to

delivered

sectarian

2(

n.

challenged

pattern

those

823

at

contents

nearly

prayers

e. g.,

disparage[ d]

strongly

convert

to

references

measured

hypersensitive

the

attention

referenced

and

when

exemplar

inquiry

our

the

matter,

to

ought]

See,

case.

plaintiff'

they "

s[

legislative

initial

opening

See

call

because

this

the

finding

and "

forceful

more

contain

at

in

proffered

that

few

on

3.

Moving beyond
legislative

to

In

giver.

prayer

Town

predominately

t] he

town

give

an

the

among

Board

but

policy

minorities."

Greece

those

the

invocation

the

five

103

Lund,

reflect

F.

elected

Supp.

the

that

district

3d

district

and

of

require

it

givers

in

is,

that

court, "[

court'

are

Marsh

prayer

was

all

w] hen

disfavors

723.

at

policy

opportunity

Commissioners

discriminates

inherently

commissioners;

the

to

legislative

because

to

the

of

Id.

balancing."

elected

because

wished

not

the

it

prayer

Board'

According

of

Christian

non-

the

the

members.

does

in

that

who

maintains

found

court

only

for

religious

objectionable

practice

faiths

borders

achieve

district

The

the

to

effort

rotated

its

beyond

search

all

represented

layman

or

Constitution

the

ing]

unremarkable

and

town

prayer-

resulted

lead[

identify

to

guidepost

the

of

practice

fact

borders

the

as

third

selection

minister

any

ministers ...

this

its

long

then "

nondiscrimination,"

to

by

the

efforts

within

So

Id. "

one."

found

reasonable

prayer

themselves,

challenged

of

set

Court

located

welcome

would

the

Christian

made

congregations

to

relates

Greece,

of

The

Id.

prayer."

invocations

the

of

all

excluded,
religious

and

Town

of

conclusion

was

in

this

mistaken.

The

context

Supreme

is

aimed

Court'

at

prohibition

barring

on

government

34

discrimination

practices

that

result

from

deliberate

arise

part

if

only

leaders

134

prayer- giver.

of

463

this

to

alluded

directed

T] he

framework,

from

unlimited

to

of

faiths

represented

legislative

that

religious

in

prayer.

legislature

Town

lawmaking

views."

134

of

bodies

S.

the

Ct.

Greece

35

F.

1824.

3d

Supp.
of

at

prayer-

of being

district

court'

be

to

deliver

the

unless

represented

the

among
been

the

specifically

must "

at

essentially

proceedings

never

on

would

actually

has

appears

Congress,

diversity

But

representatives.

elected

were

motive."

no means

members

its

solemnize

103

with]

including
individual

selection

prayer- giver

elsewhere,

under

example,

permitting

number

faiths [

likewise

the

closed- universe

presents

the

793.

Lund,

See

minority

at

id.

aims

opinion

choosing

condition

the

of

See

that

this

selection

the

impermissible

an

context,

legislature,

invocation

opening

in

case

For

prohibited

from "

diversity.

leaving]

recognized.").

notion

court'

present

givers, ...[

stem

affiliation.

religious

cautioned

on

Court

Marsh

The

concerns

bias

or

in

faiths"

1824.

it

Greece,

of

aversion

an

of "

when

conscious

prayer- giver

mandating

723 ([

cannot

Town

minority

at

Read

district

The

Ct.

requirement

the

at

of

account

against

793.

at

in

the

to

view

religious

one

explained

evidence

S.

chaplain

guest

U. S.

is

there

town

of

As

others.

of

exclusion

favor

to

choice

promote

by

the

beliefs

measure

rejected

diversity

Consequently,

an

the

of

the

of

town

was

not

And

in

givers

prayer

in

Thus,

faiths

from

F. 3d

285 ("

at

authority

case

or

law

that

representative

of

There

legislative

is

the

as

547

require

standard

Board

commissioners

Christianity,
prayer

the

proof

we

must

as

view

constitutionally
F. 3d

that

all

1263,

instead

simply

its

the

Cir.

allowed

to

36

no

404

invocation

the

selecting
because

faith,

invariably

will

reflect

the

prayer

rely
See

2008) ("[

to

on

in

our

multiple

opportunity

promote

only

lawmaker- led

Pelphrey
Marsh]

opportunity

purposeful

prohibits

is

Simpson,

requirement

effort

an

insignificant.

be

that

practice

decision

llth

represented

constitutionally valid.

of

part

no

made

that

See

faith

some

restricted

1281 (

faiths

fact

all

of

constitutional

particular

prayer

or even more than one to be

Absent

among

of

the

legislative

same

793.

the

Marsh.

mere

representative

invocation.").

the

the

on

at

U. S.

into

and

challenging

party

this

that

commissioners,

built

Greece

of

rely

chose

adherent

faiths

Cty,

Town

cannot ...

practice

give

in

exclusion

limits

practice

limitations

the

463

Marsh,

individual

the

of

practices

prayer

See

the

unpersuaded

was

Board'

the

those

different

Court

Id.

the

appointed

to

years

non- Christian

balancing."

religious

legislature

sixteen

difference.

while

to

for

for

borders

achieve

Nebraska

The

creeds.

to

effort

minister

its

beyond

search

the

constitutional

some

an

Marsh,

Presbyterian

other

to "

obliged

to

v.

does

pray.

Cobb

not

The

discrimination.").

have

Plaintiffs

that

uncontested

bereft

government

of

altered

its

3d

Supp.

silence

does

that

Inc.

Inquiry,
Cir.

consistent

v.

2014) ("

with

Christian

religions[.]").

cannot

practice

authority

group.

has

4 63

Board

never

or

commissioner

103

Lund,

See

U. S.

F.

Marion

Marsh

the

prayers

Greece

Amendment,

confined

not

while

on

show

the

the

mere

that

open

fact

invocation

any

denomination

Ctr.

869,

government

legislative

inviting
a

over

perceive

F. 3d

758

leaders

speakers

the

to

for

874

may,

sessions

of

legislative

that

over

than

church.");

Clerk,

challenging

party

rely

Court

any more

one

of

particular

Circuit

First

century,

even

belief

or

cannot,

clergyman

and

We

this

of

choosing

of

7 93 (

of

selection

sect,

faith

one

any

at

the

that

religious

single

Congresses

beliefs

the

advances

with

the

of

suggestion

the

Christian

viewpoint.

any

advance

not

Marsh,

See

Members

non-

without

speak

tell,

can

we

determined

has

represents

who

years,

another .

as

be

can

creed

any

to

entitled

of

prayers

Court

Supreme

prayer- giver

many

far

as

of

person

and

neutral

714- 16.

at

The

is

limit

to

practice

to

attempted

is

It

motive.

facially

was

that

evidence

any

such

policy

and

Furthermore,

censorship.

discretion.

Board

the

to

elected

harbored

Board'

the

to

Court

the

directed

Board

the

suggest

would

7th

not

other

prayer

selecting

narrow

This is particularly true here as the Board has no voice

37

in

the

selection

is

which

commissioners,

of

to

the

in

the

up

entirely

citizens by election.

final

from

statement

time"

or

be "

not

may

134

belief."

the

time

over

County "

legislative

Ct.

S.

d]"

fully

first

set

out

in

picked

over

other

this

that

governmental

its

under

by

which

Town

meeting.

reaffirming

Rowan

Id.

invocation

their

whether

that

view

prayers

ceremonial

approach,

faith

then,

creeds.

the

of

any

solemnize

prayers

Marsh

of

the

over

one ...

discern,

must

conveys

practice

not

supports

We

any

found

practice "

prayer

advance

1823.

practice

prayer

commissioners'

Greece

at

Christianity

has

Board

to ...

exploited

is

prayer

the

that

Greece

of

Board' s

advance[

The

the

Town

legislative

to

guidepost

the

of

principle

subdivision

does

not

endorse any one faith or belief by opening its forum to prayers,

Union

of

example

of

purpose

was

when

v.

observing
that

U.

S.

859

844,

that [

of

r]

n.

Greece,

contained

681

is

2005) (

citing

this

two- thirds"

of

24- 25 (

the

Christian

Marsh

true

regularly.

2d

as

an

manifest

remains

communicated

20,

Liberties

whose

action

And

F. 3d

uniquely

Civil

Am.

v.

governmental

content

oughly

Cty.

10 (

religious").

religious

Town

case "

McCreary

permissible

presumably

sectarian

Galloway

in

545

Ky.,

See

ones.

sectarian

even

Cir.

prayers

at

language,"

even

See

2012)

issue

while

t] he

third

remaining

theistic

the

of

spoke

in

those

in

prayers

generically

more

terms").

The

this

in

prayers

like

case,

Town

Greece,

of

were largely generic petitions to bless the commissioners before

to

turning

consisted

typically
or

Greece

imparts,

the

of

appearance

o]

Rather, "[

their

ur

tradition

beliefs,

own

we

As

Town

of

for

that

citizens,

adult

of

134

Greece,

in

firm

appreciate

perhaps

and

Town

prayer[.]"

convey

Christianity.

preference

tolerate

can

ceremonial

sectarian]

assumes

name

unconstitutionally

not

official

an

concepts

Jesus'

31.

J. A.

Supp.

do

prayers

such

in

statement "

closing

variation.

similar

pray,"

the

of

Christian

to

References

business.

public

Ct.

S.

at

1823.

Had

instant

court,

the

case,

to

apply

chaplain

Town

the

unquestionably

would

Unlike

practice.

in

those

to

district

the

we are unconvinced the feature of a legislator delivering

prayer

endorsement

of

meaningful

legislative

speaking,

body

that

the

public

between

distinction

in

signals

unconstitutional

an

religion.

legislature."

concurring

legislators

fellow

to

Practically

the

Marsh

and

Board' s

the

uphold

Greece

of

identical

prayers

offered

Snyder,

judgment).

state- paid

Such

him.

appoints

159

They
39

unlikely

seems

F. 3d

are

in

at

to

chaplain

chaplains

1238 (

essence

draw

and

speak

Lucero,

deputized"

the

for

J.,

to

the

represent

the

sometimes

the

here,

case

the

during

invocation,

placing

of

risk

his

underscores

representative

faith

particular

with

of

dissenting).

J,

Kagan,

1850 (

at

elected

an

when

Consequently,

alignment

Ct.

S.

134

Greece,

Town

Cf.

context.

this

in

body

governing

is

as

government'

the

weight behind this view is the same as those practices upheld in

Marsh

Town

and

lawmaker- led

is

prayer

the

do

to

clergy

of

with

from

different

significantly

not

denominational

selecting

government

the

onto

degree

the

words,

other

projected

preference

denominational

In

Greece.

of

prayers

Both

same.

arise in the same context and serve the same purpose.

If

tenured

select

particularly

individual

See

sixteen

years

explicitly

that

the

practice

of

the

legislature

Supreme

is

Nebraska

message

chaplain

invocations,

had

not

the

advanced

to

likely

pose

to

has

figure,

reflect

faith

the

Court

that

concluded

constitutionally

1087,

F. 3d

have

might

paying,

selecting,

collectively

religious

not

710

Lancaster,

v.

Presbyterian

Christian

of

endorsement

preference

Rubin

more

seems

to

seem

would

single

of

employee,

Yet,

W] hatever

2013) ([

its

state

obvious

more

through

presence

represents.

significant.

Cir.

paid

Marsh

in

as

governmental

perceived

this

The

problem.

greater

chaplain

body

legislative

the

allowing

anything,

and

who

Supreme

1097 (

conveyed

retaining

often

Court

Christianity.").

9th

for

delivered

concluded

prayer

Legislative

fits

have

tradition

given "

opening

legislative

embark

reflect

Id.

occasion."

business

it

before

ends

The

Id.

governing[.]"

of

meant

invites

and "

common

and

is

are

Acceptable

occasion"

ideals

shared

upon

this

they

1823.

at

the

s]

solemnize[

where

sessions,

The

within

tone --

respectful"

and "

it

the

and

1819.

at

offered

prayers

legislative

fractious

the

on

of

thus "

prayer

to

lawmakers

theme

the

to

gravity

that

Ct.

S.

134

Greece,

of

observed

common

the

at

lend

they

has

Court

Supreme

to

Town

legislatures."

state

Congress

in

followed

long

when

acceptable

constitutionally

tradition

the

within

is

record here reflects just such prayers.

C.

We

legislative

under the Establishment Clause reflects that the

See

participation.

spurned

Although

Dist

while [

Free

that

noting

by

Abington

of

an]

in

judgment

in

concurring

test

Exercise

doctrine

in

gradually

several

Court

Schempp,

v.

Twp.

decisions

as

part

regarding

41

in

time,

some

U.

S.

of

need

see

Sch.

1963)

coercion

on

not

J.,

part).

223 (

203,

predicated

violation

Clause

Kennedy,

660 (

dissenting
for

religious

compels

at

374

were

cases

emerged

U. S.

and

part

Supreme

the

Establishment

coercion

492

Allegheny,

it

if

Constitution

the

violates

government

The

coercive.

impermissibly

is

Board' s

the

that

claims

Plaintiffs'

practice

prayer

test"

coercion

to

turn

now

be"),

Establishment

school- sponsored

the

Clause

prayer.

See

Lee

clergy- led
district'

as

real

v.

Doe,

well

as

pressure,

as

school

football

Although

applied

in

games

the

74

Level,

Which

Mellen

recognizing

secular

gap

settled

that

analysis

applies

governmental

plurality

by

adults

settings.

opinion) ("

to

directed

ambiguity

to

Court

Supreme

in

not

expression

355,

F. 3d

327

Bunting,

v.

299,

Rev.

L.

Temp.

It

4th

precedent

children),

is

2003)

Cir.

regard

Town

of

to

Greece

coercion- based

observances

1825 (

elemental

an

At

also

see

with

religious

at

the

and

366- 72 (

Ct.

S.

What,

that

test

Prayer

Buchanan,

2001);

encountering

134

high

coercion

339- 42 (

observing

See

Dist.

at

prayers

the

the

Who,

The

Institutions:

Governmental

Sch.

Indep.

Sidney

G.

see

public

coercive).

whether

unclear

schoolhouse,

Fe

finding

unconstitutionally

previously

beyond

2000) (

310- 17 (

290,

U. S.

530

school

students ...

attending

Santa

compulsion.");

overt

any

on

pressure,

peer

as

the

places

control ...

and

supervision

s `

down

striking

because

ceremonies

graduation

at

prayers

1992) (

593 (

577,

U. S.

505

Weisman,

v.

Kennedy,

First

in

J.,

Amendment

principle that government may not coerce its citizens to support

or participate in any religion or its exercise.").
The

on

what

Town

of

Greece

constitutes

majority,

coercion

in

however,

the

was

legislative

unable

prayer

to

settle

context.

Although five Justices agreed that the town did not engage in an
unconstitutional

coercion,

they
42

reached

this

conclusion

by

to

coercion

in

concurring

the

and

prayer

arises

1825 (

Kennedy,

to

audience

J.,

the

both

considers

Chief

by

in

Under

of

and

part

as "

which

the

Id.

directed."

is

opinion).

plurality

in

inquiry

the

setting

it

whom

Town

joined

Kennedy,
framed

Alito,

Justice

that

one

sensitive

concurring

Justice

that

to religious

penalty."

of

J.,

Thomas

1837 (

judgment).

and

threat

and

require

would

establishments

state

coercive

law

of

at

the

Roberts

Justice

fact-

Ct.

S.

134

Greece,

force

by

Scalia

and

which essentially equates

founding,"

the

observance `

the

of

consist

at

existed

Thomas

Justices

paths.

separate

this

at

view,

c] ourts remain free to review the pattern of prayers over time

to

determine

respectful

and

tradition

the "

observer"

reasonable

history

and

recognize

the

is

at

is

presumed

of

purpose

The

1826- 27.

relevant

be

to

of

solemn,

coercion

whether

or

Id.

prayer

legislative

of

Marsh,

in

likelihood."

substantial

and

real

approved

prayer

tradition

the

with

comport

they

whether

too,

here,

and

that

of

aware

history

Id.

practices.

such

is

at

1825.

district

The

First,

parts.

concluding "

potential

the [

Board]

c]

court

it

ourt

in

the

in

Kennedy'
the

general

of

finding

coercive."

43

under

Town

rules

for

prayer

evaluating

practice

130

F.

two

Greece,

of

point

context ...

the

Lund,

into

analysis

coercion

issue

legislative

direction

unconstitutionally

its

the

considered

Justice

coercion

divided

of [

Supp.

3d

the

at

district

The

729.

the]

As

to

Town

less

is

however,

between

distinction

legislative

Stein

1987) ("

one

of

The

Supreme

distinctions

Court

to

religious

at

792;

appreciate

involving
in

difference

meaningful

See

6th

1409 (

1406,

and

setting

participants.

F. 2d

that

Cir.

their

or

peer

Greece,

of

are "

own

134

Ct.

S.

delivered

susceptible

463

by

and

U. S.

A] dult

1823 ("[

at

tolerate

can

The

Marsh,

pressure."

beliefs,

prayer

readily

not

to

Marsh

prayer.").

classroom

adults

in

Court

the

by

from

prayer

ceremonial

perhaps

person

of

faith.").

Consistent

Supreme

Town

in

firm

citizens,

different

assumes

also

public

influence,

prayer

with

the

are

employed

indoctrination

see

undue

school

prior

for coercion in the prayer opportunity was

legislative

separate

doctrine

recognizes

822

Schs.,

Cmty.

potential

the

in

adults

where

session

Plainwell

v.

law

children

for

warrants

The

analysis.

constitutional

dealing

distinction

this

and

adults,

Board

the

involving

cases

potential

when

significant

Greece

of

suggested

coercion

several

The

children.

with

events

school

Town

Id.

Court'

in

developed

Greece

of

of

principles

the

to

prior

Clause.

Supreme

the

above,

noted

the

to

ed]

likewise

cases

Establishment

the

violated

these

finding

decision,"

developed

doctrine

coercion

turn[

then "

court

Court'

with

prior

this

distinction,

coercion

44

cases

we

do

applicable

not

in

find

the

analyzing

legislative

F. 3d

field

boundaries

in

analysis

Kennedy'
must

in

setting

is

Town

In

could

within

Court

be

1825 (

Court

both

ing]
to

audience

at

tradition

See

the

that

public

for

to

the

whom

it

J.,

Kennedy,

problematic `

is

at

1826.

The

that

classified

practice[

s]

if

45

thus

prayers,

that

the

Court

also

citizens

members

singled

out

decisions

their

in

not

protected

board

town

acquiescence

that

Specifically,

the

by

and

constitutionally

in

the

Greece,

flags"

coercive

indicated

person'

of

red

several `

exist "

may

or

Town

1825- 27.

participate

opprobrium,

Id.

of

at

coercion

influenced

opportunity."

id.

in

practice

exercise

prayer

prayer.

explained

dissidents

might

Ct.

S.

identified

plurality

historical

the

directed

invocation

the

when

signal

legislative

Court

134

Greece,

of

the

and

arises

prayer

Justice

the

approach,

consider[

the

under

in

by

opinion).

upholding

Supreme

inquiry "

sensitive

the

which

directed."

plurality

fact-

that

Under

opinion.

issue

of

Board

expressed

view

coercion

the

expressed

as

set

own

that

the

analyze

we

Plaintiffs

the

to

plurality

conduct

But

the

prayer

the

to

first

under

coercion

its

with

look

we

recognizing

Thomas .

and

favorable

more

in

engage

not

Scalia

Justices

Thus,

Greece,

of

legislative

made

jurisprudence

guidelines.").

Town

did

clearly

view

and

has

short,

404

Simpson,

See

here.

issue

at

Clause

Establishment

of

that

in

Marsh,

281 ("

at

like

prayer

the

prayer

identified

based

on

as

their

intimidate"

is

It

bar

coercion

from

simply
limited

rather

would

would

legislative

the

are

not

pressure

or

there

is

affected

by

Thus,

hear.

not

placed

adults

noted,

listeners

be

Adults

prayer. "

disagreeable;

find

they

speech

Court

the

why

indoctrination

religious

lawmaker- led

with

encounter

often

to

Id.

As

context.

disenchanted

that

risk

understand

this

they

speech

contact

mere

in

high

so

susceptible

presumed

to

difficult

not

to

used

prayers

of

pattern

dissenters."

chastise[]

or `

in

resulted

or

views"

religious

an

and

Establishment Clause violation is not made out any time a person

v.

the

Id.;

views[.]"

religious

542

Newdow,

l,

S.

U.

from

affront

of

sense

experiences

see

also

2004) (

44 (

the

Grove

Elk

of

expression

0' Connor,

Dist.

Sch.

Unified

J.,

contrary

concurring

in

T] he Constitution does not guarantee citizens a

judgment) ("[

right entirely to avoid ideas with which they disagree.").

The

practice

district

coercive

was

prayers

on

previously,

the

content

prayer

Moreover,

the

in

the

concluding

Town

nor

of

largely
in

shows

invocations

46

followed

Marsh

that

were

and

134

as

lengthy

Town

voluntary.

S.

Ct.

at

illustrated

of

spirit

both

prayer

commissioners'

Greece,

the

attempted

Rather,

opinion).

Board'

the

The

framework.

dissenters

dogma."

approved

record

in

this

plurality

respectful

participation

under

religious

J.,

Kennedy,

erred

chastised

neither

disquisition

1826 (

court

of

solemn,

Greece.

attendance

The

Board

and

has

represented

to

free

were

in

Invocation

Thus,

they
of

the

found

who

the

like

just

the

acquiescence [

interpreted

Town

134

Greece,

of

Ct.

S.

the

with

agreement

an

as

of

elected

light

in

not,

would]

Town

and

stay,

their

or

to

ideas

the

quiet

traditions,

be

expressed."

J.,

Kennedy,

1827 (

at

And

our

words

duration

the

Greece.

to

of

meeting

participating:

without

prayer

Plaintiffs

like

individuals

extent

Marsh

in

audiences

the

for

remain

or

prayer,

for

leave

277.

available --

options

several

invocation,

the

after

arrive

could

had

unwanted

prayer

the

J. A.

Board

attending

citizens

public

disregard

disruptive."

not

was]

matter,

practical

as

that [

manner

the

of

members

otherwise "

or

seated

remain

that

contradiction

without

plurality

opinion).

The

not

chose

to

consequences,

or

has

the

the

of

Rowan

suggest

by

attested

s]

including

in

the

their

that

constituent'

meeting,

to

similarly

agenda

items

County."
contrary.

that

devoid

Board

that

such

to

right

addressing

in

the

J. A.

Thus,

Plaintiffs

in

it

were "

prayer

fully
the

would

Plaintiffs

in

47

as

fair

and

us

on

real

adverse

contrary,

no

in

impact

the

the

on

public

participating

permitted

implausible

the

and

point

who

disrespectful,

as

have "

commission

anyone

suffered

participate

matter

is

To

way.

conduct

same

277.

any

that

evidence

perceived

was

absence

the

of

the

during

participate

recognized

was

Board

is

record

to
this

any

no

citizen

evidence

record

sense"

to

coerced

to

in

participate

at

U. S.

505

Lee,

them]

change

the

outcome.

Greece

explicitly

in

beliefs

to

about

Ct.

by

to

decline

rise

Likewise,

is

legislative

hear

by

bodies

exposing

and

in

To

be

which

burdens

were

based

received

not

legislative

line

on

need

if " town

participation

differently

to

those

leaders

in

the

depending

on

citizens

invocation.

they

may

would

at

Id.

prayer,

whether

or

rather

Id.

find

not

1827.

benefits

that

they

who

coercion

across

stray

allocate[ e]

even

course[,]

general

participate."

S.

constituents

prayer

they

are

134

true

impermissible

prayer

prayer

is

their

the

the

they

coercion.

to

in

engage

not

constituents

they

sure,

constitutional

I]

enough. "[

do

in

constituents

exposing

not

for

likely

their

violate

This

of

perceived

from whom

of

many

participate

otherwise

or

members

opinion).

know

less

that

to

Town

citizen'

prayer

nothing

715- 16.

at

prayers

plurality

body may "

that

does

constitutes

ruling"

anonymity

merely

offensive

merely

J.,

Kennedy,

making

name,"

in

board

the

please

legislative

the

where

claim

sectarian

s]"

3d

Supp.

F.

the

favorable

seek

130

participate

to

order

1825 (

at

to

advocate[

effective

Lund,

to

them

Board' s

the

that

and

opposition

public

rejected

pressure

subtle

their]

less

make [

could

prayer.

made

practice

prayer

meetings"

at

excluded

with [

the

that

allegations

subjectively `

disagreement

legislative

of

exercise

586.

Plaintiffs'

feel

Board' s

the

the

and

citizens

joined

the

invocation

be

or

the

in

evidence

Id.

declined."

quietly

to

record

must

that

of

allegations

support

there

But

1826.

at

sort.

There is no such evidence in this case.

district

prayer

directed [

in

prayers]

This

themselves.

did "

commissioners

directed

that

the

the

but

another,

citizens

and

prayer

benefit

the

for

of

internal

is

it

that

rather,

the

that

an

practice

as

well

as

shows

view,

the

where

others

of

Plaintiffs'

in

consider

not

behalf

Br.

Response

not."

invocations

several

on

prayers

one

at

toward

directed

to

evidence,

did]

Greece [

of

point

offered

commissioners

claim

an external act focused on the broader

Town

Plaintiffs

11.

act

was "

the

has a type of coercive power that the internally

which "

public,"

8,

here

practice

of

support

first

They

ruling.

coercion

court'

in

arguments

several

make

Plaintiffs

also

Id.

all."

at

11.

Town

of

The

opinion) ("

indeed,

of

moment

purpose

can

the

be

prayer

and

Ct.

S.

principal

but

public

or

thereby

rationale

heightened

internal

lawmakers

eases

here

is

should

for

the

task

obvious.

the

Kennedy,
these

themselves,

sets

reflection

of

The

coercion

plurality

is

invocations

not,

who may find that a

the

mind

probability

be

of

nature

J.,

governing.").

prayers

49

external

impermissible

1825 (

at

audience

quiet

or

whether

determining

134

See

occurred.

the

notes

in

practice

prayer

Court'

Greece

directed

to

The

of

at

higher

Supreme

coercion

those

in

Plaintiffs'

attendance.

however,

argument,

that

posits

any

prayer referencing a person or concern beyond the members of the

That

is

body

legislative

protected

constitutionally

for

divine

such

Supreme

Court

Indeed,

the

The

that

prayed

sometimes

in

Iraq

Town

the

officers

purpose.

similar

legislators.

here

commissioners

heal

and

does

not

wounded

the

take

protected

constitutionally

of

realm

in

The

responders.

fellow

protect,

police

serving

contained

individual

bless,

God

request

single- minded

than

other

that

fact

Greece

of

persons

injured

and

outside

prayers

at

such

required

in

prayers

1824.

at

soldiers

never

focused

expressions

id.

has

its

lose

not

those

than

first

or

overseas

prohibited.

includes

it

other

persons

troops

our

as

office,

See

for

protection

does

because

status

thus

and

prayer

Legislative

be.

cannot

directed

externally

legislative prayer. 6
Plaintiffs

public

Board' s

opening

asking

dissent,
gallery
ask

ceremony

to

everyone

Taking

God

we

do

two

families,

our

and

arrogance,

70 (

citing

J. A.

continue

friends,
heal

16,

the

our

the
to
and

commissioners

began

exemplar

the

prayers

connection

our

souls,

and

17).

50

or

renew

chairperson

and

in
to

our

Pledge

referenced

to

the

reiterate,

this

forgive
vision."

the

of

the

by

coercion

delivering

everyone

homes"

unacceptably

the

with

Invocation

Commissioner

bless

To

prayers.

the

for

understand

heard

the

usually

stand "

of

not

audience

to `

in

participation

directed

the

that

argue

next

if

the

prayer

room,

our

our

pride

Cf.

infra

let

with "

Plaintiffs

the

concluding

thus

at

of

realm

within

these

that

concern [

of

territory

to

amount

agreed,

within

squarely

or

Town

in]

Id.

court

fall

requesting,

asking,

soliciting,

district

typically
me."

with

pray

statements "

commissioners'

that

statements

The

coercion.

the

please

or "

designated

The

714.

at

invocation

an

offer

pray"

maintain

unconstitutional

the

us

3d

Supp.

F.

then

would

commissioner

started

103

Lund,

Allegiance."

directing,

and

Greece."

Id.

of

728.

Again,

for

offered

the

state

legislatures,

No

case

has

legislative

local

routine

such

session amounts

in

centuries

countless

and

held

ever

two

over

routinely

the

boards

been

have

invitations

Similar

disagree.

we

Congress,

U. S.

and

councils.

opening

courtesy

to coercion of the gallery audience.

It would come as quite a shock to the Founders if it had.

the

When

about

the

at

1826 (

it

become

Pledge

part

of

not

J.,

backdrop

the

practice

presumed

did

Kennedy,

against

As

direct[

prayer- givers

prayers,"

of

that

our

the

Town

the

has

or]

public

foregoing

historical

long

observer

51

in

prayer[.]"

is

concern

in

participate

134

mind.

is

Id.

legislative

tradition ...

inaugural

reasonable

to

practice."

endured,

and

expressed

Coercion

opinion).

plurality

of

Greece

of

the

ing]

have

heritage

Allegiance [

that

in

Court

Supreme

measured
1825.

at

has

prayer

similar

the

to

It

Id.

acquainted

Ct.

S.

with

is

this

tradition

to

the

lives

this

lens,

in

holds

through

familiar

Id.

submission.

for

Board'

the

assume

safely

at

that

Plaintiffs'

the

noting

hardly

most"

only

legislative

prayer

exercise

involvement

of

opprobrium

several

not

the

U. S.

463

to

not

Board

that

fashion

Myers,

fall

public

in

they

claim

members

line."

statements

the

ing]

non- participants."

by

that

invitation

short

signaling

Response

where

52

Br.

an

In

to

here

is

portion

of

sum,

opening

rise

and

join

formal

practically

obliges

the

406.

were

singled

out

their

disfavor

of

acting

12

J. A.

See

of

20.

may

religious

some

F. 3d at

goes

follow

can

performance

418

of

We

Telling

792.

stood).

open

same

of

risk

at

us

stand.

participate.

audience

to

The

Plaintiffs,

indicates

which

orchestrat[

members

let

thoughts

mind

concurring).

without

the

with

in

J.,

to

call

rational

like

chose

of

the

audience

Marsh,

Plaintiffs

Lastly,

did

to `

amounts

religious

who

cues

often

in

directives

phrase "

reflexive"

adults,

mature

evidence,

own

audience

for

The

the

interpret

government

as

Viewed

Id.

would

prayer.

almost

Alito,

1832 (

See

indoctrination.

the

compels

request

contextual

such

in

and

hardly

that

invocation

invitations

gravity
religion

place

citizens[.]"

person

reasonable

no

the

acknowledge

lend

to

are

purposes

private

many

participation

is

pray"

of

commonplace

commissioners'

commanding

to

and

proceedings

public

its

that

understands

and

Plaintiffs

for

those

cite

commissioners

to

were

103

F.

My

evil

call

the

issues

by

friends,

we'

having

close

prayers

nothing

to

to

that

showing,

the

from

those

invocations

ignorant."

despoil

tradition."

that

as

Town

comments

to

referred

here

Town

in

of

not

or

to

do

not

of

betray

an

1824.

at

different

several

where

the "

are

pattern

materially

as

other

they

Ct.

S.

way.

comments

incidents

Greece,

opponents

prayer

the

doubtful

prayer,

proselytize,

are

for

these

requires, "

134

and

wrong

response

isolated

Greece

of

purpose."

cited

referenced

Such

denigrate,

government

minority"

and

A few stray remarks are simply insufficient to

Id.

practice

that

on

the

whole

reflects

and

embraces

our

Id.

in

Participation

the

day.

sick

itself

is

in

am

the

Lund,

g.,

best

giving

which

and

way --

legislative

with

the

time

over

impermissible

Indeed,

carry

like,

do

to

long
Even

litigation

post-

came

most

evil.").

would

what'

minority

come

ve

e.

Sides: "

Jim

chairman

the

good

and

Plaintiffs

insufficient

come

then-

See,

minority.

religious

told

good

weight

because

the

715. (

at

being

of

majority.
We

3d

Supp.

tired

in

those

of

critical

invocation,

Plaintiffs

is

the

Board' s

voluntary.

are

subject

to

Yet

opening
the

ceremony,

district

unconstitutional

court

including
concluded

coercion

because

they claim to be compelled and coerced based on their subjective

speculation

conclusion

about

cannot

how

be

their

abstention

reconciled

53

with

might

be

received.

Town

of

Greece

and

That

its

the

of

rejection

Town

circumstances.

that

invocations

comport

with

legislative

Board' s

that

outside

constitutional

is

practice

prayer

of

The

Clause.

to

close

not

prayer

tradition

Establishment

the

of

range

legislative

historical

the

similar

narrow

render

could

and

coercive

practice

that

circumstances

exceptional

identified

Greece

of

in

adults

of

coercion

of

notion

crossing

line.

IV.

None

have

Plaintiffs

meritorious

claim

Marsh and Town of

The

Board'

erred

judgment

of

directions

to

the

reasons

same

legislative

It

in

the

such

do

the

for

the

the

all

taking

they

whole,

case

by

not

reflect

failed

claims

in

Greece.

nonadherents.

amalgamated

an

for

tradition

recognized

court

as

claims

Plaintiffs'

this

of

even

Similarly,

above.

out

set

reasons

facts

the

under

validity

raised

contentions

constitutional

the

of

is

does

and

therefore

concluding

district

dismiss

prayer

the

to

not

coerce

falls

is

contrary.

reversed

within

participation

Accordingly,

and

our

by

district

The

constitutional.

the

court

practice

remanded

the

with

complaint.
REVERSED

AND

WITH

54

REMANDED

DIRECTIONS

As

Commissioners.

these

may

not

The

well.

in

only

who

help

will

our

all

of

fine

our

in

best

county

message

but

welcome

prefatory

process

the

serve

to
are

community

the

as

as
of

good

live here.
Message

The

our

in

citizens

wish

faiths

religious

but

meetings,

We

prayer.

the

faith

religious

all

of

members

these

participation

self- government

people

that

deliver

who

own

offering

when

yours

however,

emphasize,

welcome

to

their

to

reference

make

refer

might

an

of

begin

customarily

Those

invocation.

Board

County

we

aware,

are

you

of

many

Rowan

the

of

meeting

with

meetings

invocation
you

the

to

Welcome

dissenting:

Judge,

Circuit

WILKINSON,

of

actually

exclusion.

statement

tone

different

for

the

is

That

that

to

akin

in

delivered

this

pity,

above

Religious

because

one

not

of

brief

even

to

set

requiring

the

helped

have

while

Welcome

not

was

case

might

here

meetings

of

judiciary to police the content of legislative prayer.

I.

Religious

and

strength,

for

foundation

not

in

and

support

guidance,

personal

of

is

observance

serves

which

mutual

source

only

Its

comfort.

exercise

communal

is

faith

times

as

the

sustenance.

But

need

of

charitable

treasured

also

when a seat of government begins to resemble a house of worship,

the

of

values

danger

affidavits

here.

It

of

This,

cannot

Nancy
I

be

observance

division

religious

of

Voelker).

religious

Lund,

rises

Liesa

Montag-

This

55

case

is

is

S. A.

Siegel,

what

more

and

risk,

at

accordingly.

suggest,

respectfully

right.

put

are

and

is

than

the

1- 10

Robert

happening
a

factual

Town

on

It

conceptual

is

Rowan

prayer

sectarian

But

1820- 23.

officials

itself

issue

before

Greece

of

the

same

ruled

that

with

134

unconstitutional.

us

in

on

more

Town

of

Greece.

that

just

Whereas

public

was

in

invocations

the

delivered

it

case,

Ct.

S.

than

turns

in

concern

prayers

exclusively

who

government,

of

laws

by

primary

led

Town

sure,

year,

after

year

week

Rowan

Those prayers served to open a meeting of our most basic

County.
unit

the

ministers

guest

be

invocations

featured

practice

month,

To

not

the

content,

prayer

is

2014).

1811 (

Ct.

S.

apart.

after

month

134

Galloway,

v.

prayer

references.

sectarian

at

world

County'

week,

after

Greece

of

wrinkle

citizens

affecting
The

lives.

local

were

uniformly

commissioners

of

the

bordering

prayers,

proselytization,

in

board

daily

most

their

exhortation

on

or

one

and

combination

of

invitation

for

referencing

sectarian,

passes

of

aspects

times

at

that

only one faith though law by definition binds us all.

have

legislators

as

referencing

governmental

every

the

nothing

sole

That

but

case

remain

in

no

prayer

on [

This

official

faith,

way

and

even

sought

Nor

case.

prayer]

56

the

broad

to

prayers

sectarian

consistently

exceeds

setting

legislative

constraints

single

it.

like

prayer- givers,

participation,

audience

Greece.

seen

of

reading

of

Town

of

outcome

of

that "

no

dictate

did

content."

local

intimacy

it

the

suggest

Id.

at

1823.

The

Clause

Establishment

denigrate

time ...

over

threaten

damnation,

risks, "[

c] ourts

over

time."

Id.

Above

all,

to

audience

The

the

combining

County'

invocations

sectarian

would be
No

in

prepared

opening

their

legislative

not

welcome

American

for

left

this

prayers

t] he

inquiry

pluralism,

prayer

1825 (

at

at

decision

prayer

that

argument

this

limits,

what

prayer

Rowan

here.

Lund

9: 20- 10: 08,

wonder

added).

emphasis

presented

the

and

arises

involvement,

audience

that

one

case

Rowan

v.

if

is

any,

to

appellants

of

local

government

localities

enjoy

considerable

recognize.
that

invocations

with

practice

here

without

of

nation

57

and

every

its

unfortunate

whose

prayers.

envelope.

circumstances

considering

bears

County
for

pushes

set

exceptional

fold

the

to

meetings

at

meetings

prayer

constitutional

ruling

to

disputes

one

of

sensitive

legislative

oral

Argument

am

the

setting

during

Oral

Id.

speakers,

conceded

15- 1591).

No.

Cty (

those

assess

that "[

fact-

any

government

precedent.

without

cited

not

local

counsel

To

minorities,

pattern

stressed

which

directed."

is

particular

and

content,

Court

in

setting

have

parties

the

review

remains

prayer]

it

whom

to

Supreme

the

the

both

considers

religious
Id.

that

prayers

1826- 27.

legislative

into

free

or

conversion."

preach

or

remain

at

nonbelievers

to

host

play

cannot

still

very

latitude

But

would

into

implications.

consequences

penny

the

envisions

the

for

one

abiding

Fourteenth

and

in

diversity

that

conviction

faiths,

and

nation

Amendments

the

is

our

dimensions

its

of

all

its

in

belongs

orthodoxy

beliefs

all

First

the

in

enshrined

which

for

respect

constitutional

surpassing

whose

nation

many,

of

out

strength.
II.

Though the majority treats this case as all but resolved by

Town

factors

of

that decision did not touch upon the combination

Greece,

of

legislator- led

distinct

great

legislators

F. 3d

state

congregations

of

local

Greece

eight- year

public

in

any

way.

v.

came

Ct.

from

the

and

at

every

that

prayers

district

58

Id.

local

of

selected

But

Town

of

the

during

crucially,

their

in

from

all

Nearly

noted,

Cty.,

ministers

influenced

court

the

at

invocations

by

minister

faith.

or

leaders

1816- 17.

784- 85

783,

Forsyth

The

solely

local

or

state

v.

by

meetings).

delivered

S.

delivered

Joyner

prayers

involved

not

the

The

law.

case

U. S.

463

form

officials

ministers

by

paid

commission

134

guest

Chambers,

2011) (

Christian,

As

by

of

question

have

cases

sessions);

likewise

period

prayer

chaplain

Cir.

county

were

Id.

4th

were

officials

Clause

legislative

congregations.

congregations

an

at

Establishment

Marsh

by

343 (

341,

public

invocations

E g,

leaders.

of

opening

Town

but

all,

at

by

prayers

legislative

of

invocation

1983) (

653

within

minority

the

particularly

Indeed,

prayer.

majority

religious

here,

presented

no

content

Greece

invited

ministers,

themselves

By
County

lead

they

took

whom

the

invocations `

Town

involvement"

find

the "

Greece,

of

the

by

its

prayer

Of

course,

their

Rowan

County board

Rowan

faiths,"

more

led

unconstitutional.

only

did

all

the

275- 94

Compared

103

to

government

district

Lund,

were

which

intimate

the

Rowan

J. A.

724;

at

722.

at

Not

commissioners).

and

greater

much

practice

County

at

composed

personal

Id.

prayer,

commissioners,

turn.

also

they

denominations.

five

the

of

affidavits

but

to

according

in

responsibility

prayers,

Christian

uniformly

the

up

board

five

the

were

3d

Supp.

prayer- givers

eligible

only

meetings

commission

of

each

the

contrast,

F.

103

Lund,

invocation."

the

gave

of

legislators

the

which

terms

the

providing

in

situation

in

practices

prayer

volunteers

or

clergy,

described

once

not

and

legislative

discussed

consistently

court

to

Supp.

at

F.

723.

it

because

tradition

in

just

brief

survey

Br.

at

and

bodies

legislative

by

prayers

of

national

States

led

was

amicus

states'

silence.

the

13.

over

practice

prayer

the

amici'

in

there

remind,

own

infirm

exists

simply

research,

legislative

robust

According

legislators.

by

delivered

not

As the majority and the

commissioners.

rightly

engage

was

all

prayer

two

but

or

to

state

moment

of

of Amici Curiae State of West Virginia and 12 Other

Lawmakers

half

of

lead

those

at

least

states,

59

some

legislative

including

seven

of

prayers

the

ten

legislative

state

Many

to

officials

tradition

The

of

how

for

candidates

the

on

the

factor

or

Greece,

is

Douglas

134

S.

legislator- led

gravity

Court

to

differences

common

313 (

thus

Court

sets

and

thereby

Ct.

at

that

to

deference

in

1825.

when

purpose,

prayer

has

public

as

business,

to

of

just

whenever

Supreme

their

to

wish

their

into

elect

Justice

As

people

religious

are

from

life

proclaim

otherwise.

We

Zorach

Being."

v.

1952).

that "

recognized

the

The

they
I

task

the

eases

personally

not

would

reminds

and

for

purpose,

all

As

the

lends

transcend

society."

In

cast

prayer

and

of

lawmakers

suspect.

to

prayer.

moment

egislative

peaceful

the

utter

lawmakers

higher

for

effect

constitutionally

L]

to

Town

governing."

of

solemnizing

prayer

of

moment

legislators]

of

mind[ s] [

emphasized, [

pursuit

aspiration

presuppose

they

be

not

could

indicator

understandably

those

of

one

nature

office

may

observed, "

aptly

heightened

likely

Supreme

It

reflection

purpose

Voters

devotion

but

intertwined

political

of

is

democratic

divorce

their

see

trail.

306,

U. S.

Supreme

quiet

higher

to

campaign

343

The

be

religious

0.

Clauson,

would

levels

all

institutions

whose

legislators

assessments.

political

William

by

We

practice.

elected

15.

prayer

it

unrealistic

religious

faith

of

at

Id.

prayer.

give

13- 14.

at

upon

call

also

governments

city

and

county

Id.

circuit.

our

within

chambers

petty

expresses

Id.

at

1818.

delivered

Prayers

by

proffered

of

the

as

to

meeting

non-

are

which

diverse

or

references

sectarian

contain

by

denominational

in

And

faiths.

general

from

fact,

the

delivered

the

the

and

which

at

what

survey

generally

exhortations,

or

legislators

of

by

the

which

on

survey

very

benefit

citizens

officials

elected

survey

the

Greece

of

proselytizing

or

for

requesting

know

we

given

prayers

of

percentage

do

Nor

pray.

on

the

Town

themselves

are

primarily

in

as

here,

did

prayers

were

prayers

commissioners

or

from

discern

cannot

which

amici

legislators

focused,

the

We

diverse.

quite

however,

legislators,

by

majority and amici rely takes care to note that highly sectarian
prayers

NCSL

hereinafter

Curiae

State

the

Further,

We

should

among

prayer- givers

prayers

the

an

Conference

of

Br.

24;

prayer- giver `

that

may

be

Amici

of

States

Other

2002)

5- 145 (

Process

at

12

and

also

at

should

unsuitable

13.

be

to

NCSL Survey at 5- 146.

then

not

elements

before

Op.

Maj.

see

expressions

exclusively

citizens

sectarian

to

National

Legislative

the

but

etiquette,"

of

others."

of

cautions,

faiths."

focus

breach

Virginia

West

survey

some

of

interaction

the

Survey];

sensitive

especially

members

of

faith

Inside

Legislatures,

State

only

the

to

insensitivity

to

not

represent "

on

any

specific

of

them

referencing

one

to

61

general

to

this

faith,

legislative

faith

and

in

but

on

the

legislative

case --

participate,

single

survey

invitation

exclusively

every

regular

of

meeting
At

local

certain

level

the

Town

that

coercion

over

interaction

the

point,

of

body

governing

period

these

of

Greece

of

of

years.

many

elements

rises

to

Id.

at

elements

in

condemned.

1823.

III.

turn,

beginning

delivered

lead

in

2013,

legislators

505

religion").

the

The

County

same

n.

2,

577,

U. S.

variant

Rowan

out

143

of

now-

and

103

Lund,

ideas

ing]

some

139

vast

of "

in

majority

retired

on

commissioner,

prayer

were

mentioned

62

four

the

when

97%,

this

prayer

v.

as

particular

closed

transcript

invocations,

sectarian,

religion

with

Lee

also

prayers

non-

lawsuit

referencing

see

with

county

began

sectarian

12- 38 (

S. A.

Only

record).

very

or

139

those

name."

the

are

of

defining

identified

of

when

714;

at

when

commissioners,

explicitly

3d

1992) (

present

start

meetings,

Supp.

images

Jesus'

prayers

no

F.

not

2007,

the

prayers

588 (

or

to

combined

when

meetings,

November

meetings,

delivering

Christianity.
Weisman,

From

prayer,

County

public

themselves

commissioners

danger

Rowan

regular

board

the

poses

The

state.

its

recording

March

us[

the

of

embodiment

began

their

that

aforementioned

Legislator- led

elements,

prayers.

in

assembled

the

of

fact

the

with

other

ministers

each

invocations.

the

the

with

discuss

shall

of

with

all

given by
J. A.

other

296

than

in

Christianity

five-

half

and- a-

103

Lund,

years,

F.

3d

Supp.

at

714.

five

The

exclusive

and

Lund,

103

blend

into

Lord,

complete

F.

733.

at

16.

S. A.

the

As

the

the

of

the

prayers."
seemed

prayers

taxpayers

the

to

it,

put

Rowan

of

so

representatives

state'

maintain[ ed]

commissioner

one

represent

we

When

content

times,

At

role.

and

you

represent

County."

over

legislative

their

we

control

3d

Supp.

Christian, `

all

commissioners,

emphatically evoke a single religion in nearly every prayer over

a

of

period

faith,

true

one

many

other

laws

that

believers

runs

228,

U. S.

An

in

this

244 (

435 (

clear

country

1962).

t] he

one

religious

meetings

singular

denomination

Larson

the

of

command

clearest

another."

over

That

one.

only

those

yet

in

passed

are

and

cannot

456

Valente,

v.

1982).

equally

sanctioning

embraces

that "

preferred

faith

And

well.

as

of

bind

Muslim,

Jewish,

Hindu,

believers

every

against "[

Clause,"

officially

of

overtly

up

Establishment

non-

and

members

govern

government

embrace

Christian,

but

regulations

and

the

as

perceived

prayer- givers,

rules

be

to

comes

individual

of

board'

The

faiths,

all

of

residents

where

merely

itself.

government

be

not

faith

that

years,

many

should

official

Town

of

is

command

stay

out

prayers."

Greece

that

of

Engel

echoed

63

each

the

v.

that

separate

business

of

Vitale,

370

principle

government

writing
U. S.

even

or

421,

as

it

legislative

upheld

to

order

promote

behavior."

134

officials

sole

elbow-

deep

Establishment

prayers.

reflects

Appellant'

desire

Br.

Reply

here.

the

the

of

and

its

have

Rowan

sectarian

practice

board,

the

of

the

by

prayer

believe

to

moral

faith,

members

in

elected

banned

the

hard

of

warnings

prescribing

that

is

code

sole

activities

it

8- 9,

at

or

age- old

individual

of

institutions

instituting

By

contends

county

belief

from

prohibited

public

These

proclaimers

in

our

of

selecting

the

the

only

1822.

ears

Clause --

Although

in

system

at

deaf

on

the

as

is

Ct.

is

Government

recited

preferred

S.

fallen

apparently

County

be

to

prayers

prescribing

Our

prayer: "

that

practice observed so uniformly over so many years was not by any

practical yardstick reflective of board policy.
the

Further,

religions

in

Rowan

on

electoral

promise

same

Chambers.

give

as

of

The

benefit.

of

which,

officials,

Appellant'

for

all

than

diversity

chaplain

103

Br.

Supp.

election

faiths

the

the

sixteen

at

F.

or

3d

county

26.

C:i!

in

723.

it

faith,

selection

years

at

points

the

of

only

prayer- givers

dependent

process,

no

range

Because

potential

closed- universe"

a"

the

affects

prayer.

invocation,

the

Lund,

outcomes.

identity

legislative

from

came

candidates

government

the

could

County

this

welcomes

in

represented

commissioners

frames

prayer- giver'

of

Appellant

says,

holds

which

greater

ministers

out,

case

solely

resulted

of

Marsh

by
in

v.

the

But

small

instance,

the

her

lead

took

is

public

Baha' i

to

Court

The

or

Christian

layman,

opportunity

in

residents

after

pervasive

Jewish

of

representatives

elect

town

of

Town

in

turn

to

Id.

no

granted

Ct.

at

the

1817.

the

of

member

any

about

priestess

S.

invocation

But

1826.

at

134

that `

an

complained

Wiccan

Greece,

fact

offer

For

faiths.

officials

and

of

the

Greece

local

prayers,

convictions ."

own

the

prayers.

in

of

appointment

religious

minority

practitioner,

comfort

welcome

it may be more difficult to expect voters

will,

at

their

diversify

can

While

oranges.

and

apples

comparing

legislators

of

group

prayer- givers

to

is

county

reflecting his

guest

ministers

or

clergy and no member of the public delivered an invocation here,

that

being

that

dominates

the

to

When

de

legislative

which

office.

to

becoming
in

It

turn

pray

in

deters

be

the

issue

those

of

so.

65

for

test

prayers

wonder

religious

campaign

should not

litmus

may

voters

takes

reality

sectarian

same

minority

Failure

elected.

risks

faith

religious

the

custom,

of

candidate

belonging

commissioners

single

facto

delivering

the

to

the

faith

electorate.

this

Entrenching
closer

for

reserved

what

persuasion

of

name

or

the

tacit

minority

one

us

office.

public

becomes

kind

embedded

prayer

of

would

select

prevailing

political

faiths

step

from

if

faith

debit,

seeking

None

among

at

Without

this

of

blur

to

threatens

degree unimaginable

line

the

local

between

Clause

the

of

role

audience,

their

governmental

setting

the

to

the

and

the

of

or

aspect

single

Establishment

an

creates

combination

faith,

single

of

the

No

years.

instructions

their

commissioners,

invocation

is

record--

legislators

by

solely

the

with

unremitting

led

many

alone

case

it

Rather,

problem.

over

meetings

many

an

of

Id.

prayers.

contend

must

still

we

balancing"

religious

legislative

or

prayers

sectarian

overwhelmingly

consequence

far,

so

going

for "

need

officials,

implications

far- reaching

through

imply

to

elected

candidates,

1824.

that

is

this

of

to

state

and

church

in Town of Greece.
B.

brings

That

by

preceded

Town

participation.

of

legislative

the

apparent.

in

County
eyes

The

the

hearing

day

prayer

prayer- givers.

and

See

on

invocations

day

out,

ears

of

S.

reminds

audience,

Ct.

at

Rowan

at

uttered

must

favors

the

the

134

attendees

commission

and

Greece

of

have

one

for

by

1825- 26.

the

grasped

that

look

to

not merely

County

faith

attendees,

to

us

and

this

were

commissioners

encouragement

or

request

the

of

prayers

in

element

problematic

second

the

that

fact

the

case:

the

to

us

the

Here

board

state'

the

effect

actions

of

effect

is

the

upon

meetings,

representatives

the

obvious:

one

faith

approval

audience

sets

the

only.
the

Rowan

In

the

tone

for

the

T] he

case, "[

favors

This

them

asking

Please

that

non-

in

plaintiff

one

the

County

this

Board

and

her],

like [

Christians,

and

with

leading

me."

are

exhortations.

during

attendees

with

103

Lund,

frequent

by
the

to

directly

stand

pray

message

amplified

was

spoke

to

by

affidavit of Liesa Montag- Siegel).

message

Commissioners

expressed

that

and

5(

S. A.

As

sent

prayers

Christians

outsiders."

or "

follow.

to

meetings

like "

phrases

F.

3d

Supp.

prayer,

Let

us

714,

at

pray"

727.

The

record reflects that the great majority of attendees did in fact

join

and

that

Chair'

reviewing
Town

stand

but

leaders

noted

emphasis

district

Town

weight

the

that

its "

the

court

of

Greece

request

when

to

public

they

to

fall

plurality."

conveyed

audience

in

the

would

an

be

134

T] he

Lund,

103

within

stand

official

F.

or

from

town

at

1826.

The

if

the

directing ...

or

67

in

Supp.
pray

capacity

me,"

not

Ct.

Board' s

squarely

to

S.

different

participate

When

with

pray

came

requests

they

affidavits).

Please

or "

pray"

Board]

that

so

stand"

plaintiffs'

did. "[

requesting,

an

to

714,

at

the [

of

result

ministers."

analysis

noted, "

asking,

us

that

guest

Here

added).

soliciting,

from

directed

members

the

like " Let

underscored

compelled

1- 10 (

S. A.

out,

phrases

Greece

of

Court

felt `

a]

id.

heads,"

their

bowing

themselves "[

plaintiffs

not

and

standing

instructions"

would

in

Board

the

town

board

prayers."

statements,"

the

of

3d

the

realm

of

concern

to

at

728.

carries

by

Id.

an

special

elected

behind

Id.

duties.

livelihood,

the

including

location

that

suggest

proximity

of

petitions

for

or

dispense

do

doesn' t.

the

to

presents,

Br.

of

at

all

decisions

on

who

the

that

close

to

citizen

boards

can

withhold

the

least,

the

say

do

and

exercises

local

that

budgets,

not

however,

note,

benefits

many

their

sectarian

participatory

25.

at

base

would

commissioners

who

and

prays

Orgs.

Liberty

Religious

Curiae

Amici

funding,

recreation.

of

and

property

sanitation

areas

official

school

variances,

and

other

both

arrayed

his

discharging
affect

and

prevention

and

parks

of

laws

zoning

fire

protection,

police

decisions

board

County

before

board

his

with

constituents,

directly

him,

beside

or

his

facing

commissioner

for

opportunity

abuse.

C.

Nothing

County'
prayers

levels.

themselves,

of

proclaim

the

directed

at

value

worth

and

Rowan

County

was

Christian

the

and

were

prayer

their

used

over

The

in

or

elected

on

no

the

many

devotion

officials

to

on

that

their

many

the

to

challenge

commentary

of

many

generations

constitutional

sense

the

disparaging

language

the

Rowan

of

beautiful

and

in

is

as

construed

moving

faith.

invocations

of

be

luminous

have

Americans

millions

should

which

invocation

Each

drawbacks

constitutional

practice

prayer

the

about

on

citizens

faith.

the

of

The

setting,

be

divorced

It

is

not

their

v.

545

Perry,

judgment).

meetings

for

embrace

an

goes

too

latitude

to

or

794- 95).

only

level.

faith

one

Orden

these

County,

reserve

over

in

concurring

he

interaction

To

Town

to

exploited

134

belief."

Even

proselytization.

in

afforded

be

cannot

any

Van

line.

that

period

she

or

setting
of

years

is especially so where prayers have on occasion veered

invocation

from

and

one

of

at

some

Rowan

closest

by

are

indicates

J.,

Breyer,

of

invites

far.

This

faith

government

with

the

been

have

the

they

which

questions

which

cross

many

that

context

Clause

citizen

average

well

might

have

would

the

that

2005) (

704 (

677,

U. S.

For

others

and

practices

acceptable

the

degree,"

of

in

proceedings

but

prayers

matter[ s]

nature

the

in

welcome

so

Establishment

scrutiny.

constitutional

from

the

be

would

which

cannot

spoken.

were

here,

prayers

legislative

Greece,

Ct.

all

at

non-

advance

or

proselytize

S.

Plaintiffs,

of

the

with

1823 (

quoting

Christians,

prayer

Marsh,

still

one ...

any

cited

greater

463

U. S.

at

examples

that

season,

we' d

they found overtly sectarian or proselytizing:

As

like

we

to

get

ready

thank

you

Cross

to

for

you

for

the

for

the

resurrection.

at

celebrate

the

Virgin

Calvary,
Because

Our
are

Heavenly
not

alive

Father,
unless

we

will

your

Birth,
we'

and
we

salvation,
and
only one way to
2007).
16 ( prayer of December 3,

Christmas

the

is

never,

life

like

is

Jesus

ever

in

to

like
to

We

you

there

Christ."

forget
us.

thank

thank

that

believe

do

that

we'

J. A.

that
are

is

we

the

defeated,
because
you

ask

of

our

to

be

this

County
these

things

us

know

in

our

17 (

at

Let

us

you

display that
fellowship.

of

how

Jewish

Christians

sensitive

if

the

their

beliefs.

the

are `

Muslim

It

is

faith

was

not

right

minority,

commencement

faith

not

these

and

heal

to
our
our

Son,

your

our

prayer

to

which

matter

70

we

of

prayers

the

on

or

view

to

of

think

Maj.
we

of

did

of

ears

Op.

others

of

that

not

to

to

Hindu

who

salvation

do

or

adherents
33.

at

would

town

or

is

It

content.

attendees,

hypersensitive."

invariable

of

fall

particular

religious

invocation

religious

fail

we

Id. (

Amen."

apart

pick

might

commissioners'

were

to

of

we

Although

mission,

sake

proselytizing

attendees,

faiths

minority

the

For

world,

God.

one,

in

division.

arrogance,

and

Christ,

to

not

language

this

religious

through

is

objectively

share

is
our

worship,

vision.

Jesus

sacred

people

the

of

personal

own

pride

all

deep

with

Christ

of

our

our

our

Lord

here

point

attendees,

their

Forgive

the

Amen."

pray.

you made

Savior

our

as

body

in

unity

name

live

we

be

to

Him

the

of

applying

Christ' s

2011).

3,

October

not

of

prayer

amongst

message

Jesus'

although

that

Jesus

the

and

the

Savior,

consider

all

2011).

7,

God,

treat

we

the

In

lives.

confess

renew

and

souls,

measure

Rowan

ask

to

hearts

His

spread

through

March

of

sent

one,

are

The

Id. (

Amen."

our

open

to

us

Merciful
we

that

confess

Spirit,

everyday

pray.

Although

you

of

homes.

our

and

Jesus,

of

name

love

and

prayer

image,

your

the

enable

and

we

people

Id.

friends,

our

Holy

pray.

teachings,

words

Christ.

2009).

May 18,
Let

in

denied,

be

Jesus

business

the

be

and continue to bless everyone in this

evening,

our

the

can'

won'

we

Lord

conduct

we

as

us

with

We

grace.
and

through

salvation

families,

room,

destroyed,

be

can'

we

immeasurable

your

of

recipients

If

surely

hall

we

be

meetings

subscribe.

And

then

why

sensitivity,

two

would

of

provisions have been devoted to

The

tenets

the

up

tones

on

the

for

leave

invocation,

of

the

can

take

or

47,

at

county
have

may

after

the

remain

for

arrive

prayer,

op.

take

of

meeting

could

maj.

participating,"

without

prayer

duration

the

lips

the

board

they

available --

options

several

from

the

attending

invitation

an

to

invitation

an

And

issued

when

those

Although

like

doctrine.

Christian

of

prominent

most

and

it?
sound

can

exhortation

of

leaders.

had

here

invocations

known

best

Constitution' s

our

such

options

served only to marginalize.

to

Indeed,

People

of

of

sense

group

local

go

often

to

to

they

which

government

is

It

choice.

join

or

church

meetings

in

their

and

But

chosen

people

as

capacity

differences.

organizations

have

they

belong.

to

wish

groups

faith

the

important

masks

options

of

speak

or

often

citizens

in

it

go

out

is

to

order

to assert their views or defend their rights vis- a- vis an entity

legal

with

forms

of

and

coercive

attendance.

In

attendees,

facing

their

bowed

heads,

to

by

unobservant,

F.

Supp.

does,

the

the

3d

or

at

board

pressures

It

of

meetings,

is

no

civic

it

between

choose "

to

are

two

the

prayer

trivial

life

spirit.

71

and

different

non- Christian

and

surrounded

practice."

Lund,

103

as

it

precincts

of

involving,

intimate

and

seated

staying

choice,

the

very

to

fell

representatives

elected

acquiescing

732.

These

powers.

The

Rowan

prayer

Another

givers.

be

might

the

idea

core

faiths

Town

behind

in

134

S.

from

courts

language,

major

into

county'

Ct.

as

concern

that

and

Such

above.

and

promote

of

many

devotion."

Religious

of

reduces

also

censors"

Supreme

the

faith,

any

people

in

prayer-

would

Message

itself

supervisors

by

of

tolerance

of

realized

diverse

inclusion

1823.

voiced

be

or

for

county

described

prayer, "

invocation

the

" act

at

can

legislators

and

community

fine

without

of

Court.

the

prayer

Id.

at

the availability of so many inclusive alternatives

Indeed,

throws

will

prayers

Welcome

legislative

united

separate

that

sessions

freedom

meetings

this

of

to

open

Religious

of

religious

Greece,

of

1822.

be

may

Welcome

risk

of

desire

public

possibility,

its

solemnize

non- denominational

Message

expression

the

as

its

of

opening

such

ways,

many

an

the

at

can

The

tensions.

such

creating

board

County

relief

the

For

practice.

confluence

unfortunate

the

to

county

factors

of

insist

on

in

the

uniformly

sectarian prayer led by legislators of one faith in a closed and

purely

governmental

premise

of

the

space

Establishment

carries

far

us

from

the

central

Clause.

IV.

By

in

Clause

balance.

their

the

pairing
the

First

Americans

faith

Free

but

Amendment,

are

not

Exercise

to

Clause

the

encouraged

establish

72

with

Framers

to

it

the

struck

practice

through

Establishment

and

the

careful

celebrate

state.

See

370

Engel,

U. S.

Clause

Establishment

This

seems

us

not

to

weapon,

struggle.

message
never

have

of

to

played

religious
be

religious

part

welcome
in

exercise

73

in

it.

two

In

prayer

and

any

in

religious

such

behooves

and

to

religion

large

nation' s
other

Rowan

most

Are

granted

venues

The

the

great

our

or

Clause).

it

but

for

becomes

only

globe.

not,

our

this

legislative

respectfully dissent.

the

peace

by

struck

are

the

of

balance.

ancient

Probably

religious

sheathed

that

roiling

roots

Exercise

East

Middle

the

here?

balance

that

upset

now

relative

Believing
both

in

likely

the

may

to

moment

Free

the

to

relates

historic

the

discussing

divisions

our

that

just

clauses

further

take

it

as

tensions

hostility

of

recognize

small,

inapt

religious

visible

levels

an

sectarian

violent

429- 34 (

at

and

great
global

County

tolerance,

can